1 - Proving a negative is a common logical fallacy and so trying to prove that God *doesn't* exist is a waste of time and effort.

Logical attacks against faith are equally futile.

My personal view of the question "Does God exist?" is "Don't know, don't care, got better things to do".

I guess that would make me agnostic.

2 - @22, Rock, I'd also like to say that it's perfectly possible to respect a person without respecting their beliefs. There are a great many people, alive as well as long since crumbled into dust, who I respect hugely yet hold beliefs that I don't respect.

There is a time and a place for discussions such as these. I'm a fan of the great architecture often found in religious buildings and like to get in and have a good look when I can. It would be unconscionably rude to launch into a criticism of my host's beliefs when investigating these great buildings.

By extension, unless someone else's beliefs effect me in some way or have come up in a conversation such as this, then I'm perfectly happy to let them continue without proselytising the good news.

3 - Doug - that's pretty much where I'm at too. As a UU I respect other's belief systems, and I'll even defend their right to believe it. I thoroughly enjoy discussing religions with people as well - how they got to where they are, why they believe what they believe, etc. But I will shut someone down cold if they try to force their religion down my or anyone else's throats. And I despise Right-Wing churches that attempt to legalize their brand of morality, or attempt to hide their belief system in the guise of a science class.

OK, I'm off on a tangent. Sorry. Anyway, thanks for stopping by, Doug - we're on the same page.

Rock

4 - Wow, lots of comments - but mainly by the nonbelievers. I thought more of the believers would share, like they usually do. You know this is a good place to share - jump in!

@15 (Tim L.) - What you propose is known as "Pascal's Wager" ( { Link } and { Link } ). It is a type of "Christian Apologetics", or defense of Christianity. If you read some of the information in the second link, you'll see that the wager doesn't stand up to critical thought.

However, I definitely understand the feeling of wonder at things that happen around you, and the desire to understand them; I simply choose let them remain unexplained until I have a rational explanation for them.

Rock

5 - @15

Slightly conflicting points there. Do you believe in God through Divine revelation, or through fear of the consequences of atheism?

If you're looking for a get-out, I could always try and distract St Peter for a few seconds before he pulls the lever that releases the trapdoor underneath me and you could sneak in while he wasn't looking

6 - To expand just a bit on Mick's point, I believe that religion, philosophy, science, and all other forms of superstition are actually all the same thing: humans seem to have a universal need to explain what they experience. What makes all of these superstitious in my opinion (despite considering myself to be religious, overly philosophical, and fascinated by physics) is the process of inferring patterns from observations and then making assumptions regarding cause and effect. At some point in history, negative experiences occurred shortly after close encounters with black cats frequently enough for someone to infer a correlation. We label that superstitious, but at the time, it seemed a good idea to avoid black cats based on what was essentially a very primitive form of what we would now consider to be the scientific process.

I believe that this process is, at its core, simply a function of survival. Time was, if anyone ate pork, they'd most likely die. We "know" why now, but originally it was assumed that consumption of pork angered a deity, and death was the punishment. The result of this inference is that others survived by modifying their diet. Similarly, ancient Judaism not only tolerated polygamy, but abhorred homosexuality and attached a divine mandate to several aspects of childbearing (for example, if a man died childless, his brother was required to marry the widow in the hopes of fathering a child with her, and if he died, the next brother would take his place, and so on). Strength in numbers increased the chances for survival, both individually and for society as a whole, so any behavior or lifestyle that limited the pace of population growth was not only considered ill-advised, but rebellion against God himself. As the need to increase in numbers diminished in importance, monogamy became the accepted practice and the stigma shifted to adultery (though the stigma against homosexuality remains to this day in the mainstream Judeo-Christian traditions).

Philosophy has served a similar purpose, on a more abstract level: questions like "why are we here?" hope to explain not only what we observe, but what role we play within that observation, turning the lens inward in an attempt to better respond to our surroundings and our own proclivities. Sciences like psychology derive from that process, again searching for patterns, coming up with names for similar conditions, behaviors, and personalities, hoping to standardize on the ideal response to any given set of circumstances. But at its core it's the same process as religion; it just tends to associate the cause of any given effect with the decisions of an individual or group, just as physical science associates cause with "natural laws".

On the whole, I think that's a positive exercise, as long as the following are true:
- We never assume that we've found the final answer to any given question
- The pursuit does not antagonize those with an alternate explanation

As I mentioned, I consider myself to be religious (I guess you could call me a "disorganized Christian", in contrast to the "organized religion" form of Christianity). An element of my experiences cannot be easily explained scientifically - at least, not without tarnishing the experience at least a little bit. So my experience of what I would still consider to be "divine" gives meaning to my life in a way that, for me personally, just wouldn't be the same if I viewed it just as numbers.

Where I have a problem with almost all organized religion is the tendency to insist upon being right, to have a monopoly on truth. Once you assume that you know absolute truth, by definition, you stop looking. So no matter how well you understand a given concept, your understanding will never improve except by accident or external intervention. Even worse, if you know absolute truth, then anyone who disagrees - even if the distinction is infinitesimal - they are wrong. This gets messy when the truth in question is assigned divine authority, because the consequences of ignorance or disagreement are assumed to be eternal. The reason "evangelicals" have such a bad rep is that evangelism is not only the process of, but also a mandate for, the spreading of truth to those who haven't yet heard or accepted it. In other words, to be an evangelical believer (of any faith) is to believe in a divine mandate to change the minds of anyone who doesn't agree on every minute doctrinal element of one's own dogma.

That's why the Lutheran church is just a small subset of the Christian faith, but within the Lutherans, the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod can't get along, and two congregations in Denver that both belong to the Missouri Synod (it's a dogmatic distinction, not geographical) fight tooth and nail over whether or not women should be allowed to serve communion wine (not long ago, it was whether or not they should be allowed to read the scripture lesson). Unlike the scientific method, where an advance by one scientist may be embraced by his rival, because that increased understanding allows him to then make progress in his own research, the religious method tends to settle on one explanation for any given "truth", and not only cling to it despite any evidence to the contrary, but also to variously distance, demonize, patronize, or punish anyone who disagrees.

7 - Respect for belief is an interesting point. I think it depends on what the belief is and what you mean by respect.

Any scientist, whether theist or atheist, must take the evidence of experimentation as the basis for their world view. Clearly there are many questions that science does not yet have an answer for, and in those gaps the possibility of for the super natural remains.

Should a scientist respect any theistic claim that is demonstrably incorrect given the evidence we have? I won't shy away from saying that any such claim is nonsense. The Earth is 6000 years old? Nonsense!

What of religious claims that are diametrically opposite to my moral philosophy? Should religious claims that women should be treated as second class citizens be respected? No I don't think they should. Such claims should be exposed and rooted out from a civilised society. How about the acceptance of homosexuality? I'll hold no truck with religious doctrine that persecutes anyone based on there sexuality. Do I respect such beliefs? No I do not.

So in that small space where religion does not conflict with overwhelming scientific evidence and is not morally bankrupt, yes, I'll respect your beliefs. Of course that doesn't put it beyond the realms of civilised debate.

8 - The simplest way I've heard it summed up is:

God is Good
God is all powerful
Bad things happen!

I really would like to believe. I mean, wouldn't it be cool if there were some all powerful being watching over us.

Then bad things happen, and believers twist themselves in knots trying to rationalize the latest tragedy with sayings like , "we can't understand gods will."

I'll just chalk it all up to the to the fickle finger of fate.

I rather believe that the universe is random than to mislead myself into thinking there is some grand plan.

Jeff

9 - The religious person who claims that an atheist is operating on faith as much as they are, is giving religious claims a different standard of evidence than other claims. For most claims, they are satisfied with practical certainty, but when they want to convince you of something they insist on logical certainty.

For instance, the same people who say you can't know there's not a god, have no problem if you say you know there's no Santa Claus. Can you absolutely disprove the existence of Santa? Certainly not -- he might just be on a really long vacation, or serve a very select clientele. But I can go to bed on Christmas Eve without leaving a snack for Santa, without experiencing any qualms whatsoever that I might offend him, and so can your average religious person over the age of ten. I can be certain enough for all practical purposes, that I don't waste time worrying about it. Plus, Santa could stand to shed a few pounds anyway.

Furthermore, the mere existence of a deity, should we accept that, doesn't imply anything about how we should live our lives. In the absence of any direct messages or credible evidence of that deity's intentions for us, we can only make wild guesses what such an entity would value. The religious person will admit God is far beyond their power to comprehend. How then, can we presume to try to predict His desires?

There is also some question whether creation actually confers moral authority. If we were to create some self-willed, intelligent beings from scratch, does that give us the authority to decide their rightful purpose? Having created an autonomous being, do we then have the right to torture it for not meeting our expectations, or to kill it off (or allow it to perish due to conditions we ourselves have established), when we could easily save it? I think anything that can think for itself, has the right to establish its own purpose.

10 - Rocky,

Would you not be better characterized as a "nondogmatic atheist"?

{ Link }

That's an agnostic who doesn't rule out that there might be a god, but doesn't accept that the current proof of the existence or non-existence is clear enough at this stage to accept or rule out whether god exists or not, but might still be open to a change of heart and a death bed conversion anyway.

11 - I forgot the link to the Invisible Dragon in the Garage, { Link } , a construction by Carl Sagan:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

12 - Ahh ... 'tis a shame. Artie Clarke now knows and can't tell. What if as agnostics and atheists you're wrong? Don't get me wrong, I sometimes have my doubts about God and whether anyone is really listening to my prayers.

All I know is that by some kind of hocus pocus, when all hope was gone, my metaphorical Red Sea parts, the crooked paths made straight and that which I prayed came about. Maybe not in the exact color and size I thought I wanted but often times better.

Too many people think God is some sort of genie in a bottle that should just give them what they want simply because they asked for something when they were in trouble. When they don't get what they want, these same people then get mad at God because He didn't come through for them. But what they don't realize is that by the time they think about it and ask, the cause is in motion and it's too late. It's like trying to start Domino without a Notes.ini; it ain't gonna happen because what you need isn't there in the first place.

I am by no means a Holy Roller but the last thing I want is to wake up on judgment day having not made any deposits into the God account. If you can tell me what to do on judgment day if God turns out to be real and I haven't believed, that would be fantastic. I'd have more time, be able to work on my golf game, it would be great. Of course, I'd then be asking God to damn my shots so I'm back to praying. Ay, 'tis a vicious circle my friends ... a vicious circle indeed.

13 - Hi Rocky,
This is the "original" Jim, who made the comments that prompted this post.
Mostly, I wanted to apologize for the tone of my original comment. It came off far more angry than I intended or felt. (Also, wanted to mention that I am aware that I used the incorrect form of "to" - should have been "too." Gad, that's annoying.)
Possibly, the frustration easily read in my words comes from the recent spate of atheists who not only know for a "fact" that there is no Higher Power, but are hostile to my desire to believe in the same.
For the record, I am not much for organized religion. I simply believe that we humans hardly are the end-all-be-all of creation. It seems undeniably true to me that there is more to existence than we are capable of perceiving from our limited vantage point here on Earth. As the great physicist Max Planck once wrote: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
A comment from Jeff offered the simple (his word) perspective that it's clear God does not exist because if God is good, then bad things would not happen. But anyone who has lived any sort of life, easily can see the flaw in this thinking. My friend recently was laid off from our workplace. At the time, it was the worst thing that ever had happened to him. However, within weeks he had found another job that he liked much more, where he feels far more valued. He then used the severance pay he received from our company to pay off his mortgage. He is as happy as can be, and now says being laid off was the best thing that ever happened to him.
My example also is simple, but the point is undeniable. Whether something is good or bad is purely perspective. There are few things inherently one or the other. Is it "bad" that the sheep dies because the wolf hungers? Is it "bad" that the tree dies, decays, and then becomes the life-producing soil for a new tree, or is this cycle "good." Would it be "good" if no one ever dies, thus producing an unsustainable population? Or would this be "bad?" Is war manifestly a "bad" thing, or are there circumstances so intolerable that they are worth fighting to defeat, thus making war "good?"
Bottom line: That "bad" things occur - from the perspective of certain humans - teaches us nothing about the existence of God - or the lack thereof.
Thank you for this venue, Rocky. And I do again apologize for my original tone.
peace, jim

14 - Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weak atheism is not the same as implicit atheism. Weak atheism is as you have described it, but implicit atheism describes those who implicitly don't believe in a Deity simply because they haven't given it any consideration.

I have to say that I think all of these definitions cloud the issue. (None more than the above - nondogmatic atheist?! Sorry , but that must be a joke!) Belief is in your heart or it isn't, simple as that.

Just my opinion...

15 - I too am an atheist, I grew up with a scientific background, religion at school. @Keith 9. The problem, I think, with not caring, is that many decisions by bodies in power, get made on religious grounds: stem cell research, Evolution being removed from school text books, the promotion of creationism, etc. so I think one does have to care. I now live back in the UK, but lived in Boston from '98 - '05 (Go Sox!) and worked for a company in Virginia, and the thing that Europeans who have never visited the US just don't have a grasp on (all the ones I've spoken to), is just how much more religion plays in daily life in the States and the decisions people make based on it. It is so different from Europe, but I see the growth in evangelical churchs and the like in the UK.

For me, the atheist way of thinking is much more than just religion, is about approaching everything in a scientific way. ESP, ghosts, fortune telling, water divining, UFOs, etc., like every other decision we make in daily life, I need proof. The unquestioning acceptance of these, and unchecked by proper enquiry, make there way into daily life. Finally homeopathy is being removed from the NHS in the UK. Just because you don't understand something, you can not make something up to explain it. I am able to accept that I (we) don't understand something yet, and if we gradually begin to discover more about this unknown subject over time, then great. "Incredible claims require incredible proof" - was that Sagan or James Randi...I forget. The fact that a lot of the new science now is very difficult to understand for the lay person (and to get a graps on it takes a lot of effort), makes it easy to go, "Understanding the universe, way too difficult...it was made in 7 days. That's easy for me to understand"

The reduction of science in schools, and therefore loss of learning the scientific enquiring process, is a shame.

I could go on about this all night...better stop.

Anyway, 2 great magazines to get are Skeptical Enquirer and Free Enquiry. If you are in the London area, get down to Skeptics in the pub! A pint and some stimulating conversation.
{ Link }
{ Link }

16 - @5 - Hey there Karl.

As a Christ follower, I have a hard time when a non-believer implies that all Christians are non-scientific, blindly dogmatic followers who think that the written word of the Bible can only be interpreted in such a way as to deny truth.

No where in the Bible does it say that evolution cannot exist.
No where in the Bible does it say that all science is inherently evil and must therefore be denied.

I do not claim that all science is wrong. I (and I'm quite certain many other Christians) am not at all afraid to let my faith be challenged by science; as long as the science follows the scientific method, and is not Science

I am a former atheist. For me personally, the tipping point of my faith was in fact based on science. I saw (and continue to see) so much about our world that simply cannot be explained by coincidence and the laws of probability that I had a paradigm shift several years ago. My belief is not predicated on whether you or anybody else believes in Jesus, the FSM, or nothing at all.

Part of the core of my belief system is that my God granted man the ability and right to choose. I respect that right. I am to love the Lord with all my heart, strength, and mind. I am to also love my fellow man (including my enemies) as well.

As a Christian it is my joy to share the Good News of Jesus with you; but if you choose not to believe then I must accept that choice. Loving another requires that I respect his or her choices and belief systems. I don't have to agree with them, but I do have to respect them.

I would ask that you (in general, not just Karl) have the same respect for me and my beliefs.

-Devin.

17 - Arther C Clarke (who has just died) pointed out in his 3rd law that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and that just about sums up god for me. I think that primitive man invented the idea of god or gods, and so also invented the idea of worshipping such gods - the idea of religion, as a way of explaining the stuff that could not be explained by the technological understanding of the time.

For example, most religions viewed lightning as a manifestation of some disapproval of their current god incarnation, while we know, because we've advanced technological understanding, that lightning is merely a natural meteorological phenomenon and has no god attributes at all. Ditto all other "natural" phenomena - earthquakes, volvanic eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes and so on. Same also goes for human-developed technology: we now know that new devices such as telescopes are not the invention of the devil that the telescope was onec seen as, and so we have much more rational debates about the merits of modern technology such as GM food, nuclear energy, human cell cloning and so on.

We understand quite a lot these days, from most of nuclear physics through to a pretty decent idea of how the universe works, and how it started via the big bang.

I'm of the view that there is no god as any sort of overseeing deity as is put forward by the organised religions. I could sympathise with the idea of a god as a reflection of the collective human psyche, something that only exists because intelligent humans exist, but that's not an idea that 'm going to pay any serious attention to, or let it change how I live my life.

18 - As a scientific person, I have a hard time understanding people that basically say:
* I belive in XYZ.
* I have no proof that XYZ exists, just my faith and words in a book.
* The stories about XYZ in my holy book (that I take for 100% true) does conflict with established scientific facts.
* I therefor claim that all proven science is wrong, and that my faith is right.

A typical example is Noah and the ark. No, not the Lost Ark (well, this one is lost too)... Anyway, if that store is litteraly true, as some fundamentalists claim, how come that when the ark landed after 40 days, that all the 10 billion spieces on it (rememeber, evolution does not exist!) distrubuted themselves over the world in such a strange way... Polar bears went straight to the Arctic, while penguins went to Antarctica, marsupials to Australia and skunks to North America. How come not one single skunk got left in Europe or Asia? { Link }

Full version here: { Link } (not tested)

Elvis did no drugs...

19 - I would also suggest that people look up the Invisible Pink Unicorn { Link }

20 - (Twisting toe in sand) Awww shucks, them's sure some purty words you said 'bout me.

Seriously though, thank you for your kind words.

@22 - Hey there Kerr.
I realize my previous response was a bit misleading. When I spoke about respect for somebody and their beliefs, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Giving somebody respect, and respecting that they have a strong set of beliefs (whatever those beliefs may be) is not the same thing as respecting what they believe.

An example is probably in order here.

I was born in Salt Lake City, Utah. My family, historically, has very strong ties to the early LDS church. (In fact my great grandfather wrote most of their hymns). As part of my childhood education, I studied the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants (including the original 1833 compilation). I long ago rejected the teachings of Mormonism; I believe that, at their core, they (the teachings, not the people) are flawed in that they attempt to reduce the glory of God by making man an equal to Him. I cannot respect these teachings in any way -they are as much an antithesis to my beliefs as they could possibly be.

This does NOT mean I cannot show respect to a Mormon, or treat the fact that they truly believe in the teachings of the LDS church with less than the utmost respect as well. The same goes for a Buddhist, a Jew, or (dare I say it), a Muslim. Or even an Atheist.

The fact that I may disagree (in some cases quite strongly) with another does not give me the right to make fun of their beliefs, or to make them appear to be uneducated cretins. That is just plain rude.

(Just to be clear, I'm not implying that you have done this).

Rocky's theology is pretty much as far from mine as is possible. He does not believe in the existence of God; while I believe it to my very core. He does not believe in the Deity of Jesus; while I proclaim Him to be my Savior. One would think that such a schism of beliefs would put us at odds with one another in all things.

However, just the opposite holds true. I very much like Rocky, I consider him a friend, I respect his opinions, and I hold him in the highest regard. (I even pray for him and his family). His beliefs, even though I consider them wrong, are his to hold. He treats people the way I would like to be treated -with respect.

I realize now that I'm starting to ramble, so let me to finish with this simple point: Not all those who claim to be Christians are Christ-like, any more than all those who claim to be Scientists are scientific. Christianity does NOT preclude reasoned thinking; true Christianity demands it.

Peace,
-Devin.

21 - Some years back I became a 'born again atheist'. I live in a world driven by observation, facts and data. If there be a G/god, s/he should exist in a measurable, reproducible way or exhibit some characteristics that are demonstrable through observation or experimentation.

I'm very open to the idea that there might be some kind of superior being; I'm just not seeing the evidence. In fact, I'd propose that the evidence goes the other way.

For a totally wonderful analysis of religion, I refer you to the web comic 'Jesus and Mo' ({ Link }

For those who believe, I'm delighted. Faith is a wonderful thing; I just don't have it and can't trick myself into building faith. I don't begrudge the faithful their faith. I only ask they they leave me to my world view.

22 - @19 (Devin) - Thanks for stopping by, Devin. You know you are always most welcome.

To everyone else; I tend to hold Devin up as an example of what I, as an informed observer, view to be a Christian. As I have mentioned before I was raised Southern Baptist, and even went to Christian schools for the better part of 3 years. I know the Bible, probably better than many Christians walking around today. And while I am an atheist, I can find elegance and even truth in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (and I want to make the distinction between Jesus' teachings and what PAUL teaches through his letters, which are the bulk of the New Testament). I firmly hold to the concept of "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", etc. These are basic moral tenets, but you have to admit that Jesus' way of explaining them - especially 2,000 years ago - was pretty elegant.

Anyway, I hold Devin up as an "enlightened" Christian. He is an example of that I believe Christianity should be, based upon my understanding of the Bible. Devin "lives his faith" - he is a walking testimony to Christianity. He lives his life, to the best of his ability, based upon the teachings of Christ. He is also intelligent - he realizes that a great deal of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is allegorical, so that a largely uneducated populace could begin to grasp complex moral concepts - or that much of it was also to help keep a society in-line and prevent it from killing itself. He understands that Christianity doesn't necessarily contradict science; there is room for his god within the "gaps" of science (a common belief tenet known as "God of the Gaps"), and the awe at nature's complexity. I get all that about Devin - and respect him immensely for his ability not only respect my (lack of) beliefs, but also his willingness to be challenged and educated by all the science has to offer. Luckily for me, the majority of the Christians I consider close friends are much more like Devin than not.

My biggest pet peeve, if you will, with most Christians is that they accept their faith blindly. They have made no effort whatsoever to challenge themselves, ask hard questions, and truly understand why they believe what they believe. I respect anyone who has put effort into their belief system, and understanding why they believe it.

@20 (Kerr) - good points. And I get what you're saying - there are definitely rules and mandates put forth by many Christian sects that rub me the wrong way as well - and you're right, I have little to no respect for those tenets that go against my sense of morality and fairness. But, as I said earlier about Devin, there are a few who are "enlightened" enough to realize that the bulk of those mandates either come from old dogma set forth in the Old Testament, or are simply inventions of the religious leaders of that time. So, I still hold that there are many people I can "respect" who are religious, and I can respect their beliefs, because I feel they have given it some thought and are "enlightened", for lack of a better word.

@(21) Jim - thanks so much for coming back. Don't worry, no offense was taken (I hope I make that clear in my post) - I know that religion is a hotbutton topic, and it evokes strong emotions in many people. So, don't worry - I didn't take offense at your response.

Also, I agree fully with you - there are atheists who are as aggressive and dogmatic as the most fervent fundamentalist. All factions have their "extreme" elements. But, just as I am sure you hope people don't judge all of Christianity by the actions of a few aggressive zealots, I hope that people don't judge all atheists by our "aggressive zealots". Not all atheists are aggressive, smug, self-important assholes - and I hope the way I conduct myself as an "out of the closet atheist" proves this point. As I mentioned with Devin earlier, I feel he is a "walking testimony" to his religious faith; by that same token I try to be a "walking testimony" for atheists. I want people to see that atheists can be moral, family-oriented, socially active, loving people. I have a large family (5 kids), I've been married for 23 years (to the same woman), and I have a great job - I love my life, and by most accounts people would say I am "blessed". And I do all of this as an atheist. And I would venture to say that most, if not all, of the atheists who participate here are similar to me - we're not "godless heathens" with no moral compass, as many Christians believe we would be without god. I'm rambling, but hopefully you understand that a) I was never offended at your initial response, and b) I encourage you to drop by any time to discuss religion - or anything else

I also wanted to comment on your examples of "bad things happening to good people". I read a book a number of years ago called When Bad Things Happen to Good People { Link } , by Rabbi Harold Kushner. It does a good job of explaining the theistic viewpoint on this, and I encourage anyone interested in this aspect of religion to read it.

So, there's another belief of atheists I hope to dispell - that atheists just aren't knowledgeable about Christianity or the Bible. I love religious history, have read a great deal about it (especially the history of early Christianity), and I continue to do so. As I said earlier I would venture to say that I know more about the Bible than many Christians do. Hell, I even teach Sunday School (we call it RE - religious education) at my UU congregation! Bet most Christians don't expect that

Once again, thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion - and for doing so with civility and grace. It is most appreciated.

Rock

23 - Rocky,

If I may be allowed to add my 5 cents of support to you and reaction to Jim's comment.

To often have I heard and ripostes like
"..You take it on faith that there is no god. You believe that there is no god. But you do not KNOW it at all..."

I for one
(a) do not perceive a god or gods directly
(b) do not have direct cognition of god or gods
(c) remain unconvinced of the existance of god or gods
(d) do not understand the nature or form of god or gods
(e) am not aware of any truth of factuality pertaining to god or gods
so yes I for one do "know" that god does not exist to suggest otherwise is to redefine the nature and
form of knowledge.

It is not as if I and many others have taken our position on a whim. I have explored with a critical eye the ideas behind and the nature of the worlds religions, for me, any I have looked at do not stand up to my critical examination. I would have to suspend at least some of my critical faculties to accept any of the god-centric beliefs.

Before you jump on me for the use of saying "my critical faculties"
as being presumptive and high handed these are similar critical faculties used by those of firm religious beliefs when (and if) they examine other faiths and reject them as fallacious. They profess to "know" (and I use the definition above for "know") that the other 99.99% of deities past and present are false. In my experience my additional 0.01% of knowledge gained in similar study is regarded as nonsensical or stupid and just plain wrong.

I have never said any of my faith-centered friends are wrong or stupid or due any eternal punishment because they believe what they believe. If they believe it then for them it all works ... for them. For me it does not. Simple as that, period. I have long ago given up any hope that I can convince someone to change their mind on these issues so I don't try anymore. I am more than happy to accept our differences and I will listen to anything you may put forward to convince me I am wrong, but be warned I will not accept "it is because it is" or "that is not for us to know" or "because he is god" as sufficient reason to believe.

Because I maintain that I cannot at this time suspend my critical faculties sufficiently to believe what they believe is taken as an indication of, as in the comment above, some intellectual incapacity or some delusion of grandeur on my part. This manifests itself as either "so you are putting yourself above god" or the equally annoying concept that "you by your own words condemn yourself to the fiery pit".

Sorry but am I alone in finding this condescension or assumption that I am stupid particularly irksome? I try hard not to respond in kind and reiterate that I simply cannot in good conscience accept their faith. As the voice of whatever branch of religion happens to have knocked on my door becomes more strident I find this position harder and harder to do.

Steve

24 - Rocky,

I've always enjoyed talking to you about any subject (though religion was never brought up, it was usually geek talk). I've always felt a connection, if you will. Now, I think I see why. Here is a link to a journal entry of mine: { Link } . It might not explain a lot to you, but it does to me.

Peace,

Jim