Maybe First Baptist Church is not so powerful...

[If_I_Loved_you]

So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.

[Cheshire Cat]

So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way. 

[Debbie Thompson]

So as a Christian, here's how I would answer you, Ron.  Those who act badly in the name of their religion would find a reason to act badly if there were no religion.  They are using their religion as an excuse to act badly.  That goes for badly behaving Christians, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, etc, etc.

Jesus tells believers He came so we could have abundant life. Therefore, I do enjoy this life. Since I came close to losing it recently in an adverse medication reaction, I enjoy it even more than I did before.  That said, I live this abundant life with hope for heaven.

Now, I don't believe I'm wrong, but suppose I am.  OK, then, I'll never know it.  If you are wrong, you may be in for a big surprise.  :-) 

[If_I_Loved_you]

So as a Christian, here's how I would answer you, Ron.  Those who act badly in the name of their religion would find a reason to act badly if there were no religion.  They are using their religion as an excuse to act badly.  That goes for badly behaving Christians, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, etc, etc.

Jesus tells believers He came so we could have abundant life. Therefore, I do enjoy this life. Since I came close to losing it recently in an adverse medication reaction, I enjoy it even more than I did before.  That said, I live this abundant life with hope for heaven.

Now, I don't believe I'm wrong, but suppose I am.  OK, then, I'll never know it.  If you are wrong, you may be in for a big surprise.  :-)

Amen!

[If_I_Loved_you]

So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way. 

[Debbie Thompson]

Agree, Stephen....money, power, and in modern times, oil.  Wars are fought, millions die.  Not what God intended for His creation.  It's not money itself that's bad, but the love of money..."For the love of money is the root of all evil..."  (1st Timothy)  We are told to give of our first fruits...literally wheat from our fields and olives from our trees.  The modern equivalent is money, what we do to get it, and what we do with what it once we do.  :-) 

[Adam W]

So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way. 

Not believing in god is not the same as belief in god. They are not two sides of the same coin. One requires "faith" in something that has no evidence of its existence. The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence.

[Adam W]

So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way. 

Not believing in god is not the same as belief in god. They are not two sides of the same coin. One requires "faith" in something that has no evidence of its existence. The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence.

Adam you are such an intelligent person, it always pains me that you can say things with this little thought put into them.

Our consciousness and our imagination are themselves evidence of something greater than what is provable.

Your premise is just a flat syllogism.

I take no exception to people believing in god or anything like that. I am just saying that to argue that not believing in god is an equivalent form of "belief" is logically flawed.

There may well be a god - I know there is no way of knowing that and I fully accept that I cannot prove there is not. Nor do I wish to attempt to prove there is not - I honestly don't care to do so.

And for the record, I think it's worth pointing out that not believing in god is not the same as saying you know there is no god. At least it doesn't mean that in my case. I am open to the possibility that anything is possible - but I won't accept it as plausible without some evidence first.

[simonsays]

 May I suggest interested parties read  Ronald Knox on apologetics for a better understanding of why, as Stephen contends, the existence of evidence that God exists is far harder to deny than some might think. If nothing else, his writing is accessible, compelling, un-sensational and absolutely fascinating.

[Adam W]

So the reason the atheist among us don't hate God is because they don't believe in his existence. But this is only their personal belief. As it is mine that God is real and is with me each and everyday.

This is the flip side of Ron's comment.  This should not be about whose beliefs are accurate but rather about respecting those with views different than our own.  That does not make them less than us in any way. 

Not believing in god is not the same as belief in god. They are not two sides of the same coin. One requires "faith" in something that has no evidence of its existence. The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence.

Adam you are such an intelligent person, it always pains me that you can say things with this little thought put into them.

Our consciousness and our imagination are themselves evidence of something greater than what is provable.

Your premise is just a flat syllogism.

I take no exception to people believing in god or anything like that. I am just saying that to argue that not believing in god is an equivalent form of "belief" is logically flawed.

There may well be a god - I know there is no way of knowing that and I fully accept that I cannot prove there is not. Nor do I wish to attempt to prove there is not - I honestly don't care to do so.

And for the record, I think it's worth pointing out that not believing in god is not the same as saying you know there is no god. At least it doesn't mean that in my case. I am open to the possibility that anything is possible - but I won't accept it as plausible without some evidence first.

Evidence?.... like two other examples of unprovable things that have the power to move the world and universe around them?

I'm sorry Stephen, can you rephrase that? I don't follow what you mean.

[rohicks]

pray for the ones without faith because they are the ones that are truly lost.

Oh please.
That's just absurd. 

[Adam W]

My apologies.

I was referring to your original statement.

"One requires "faith" in something that has no evidence of its existence. The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence."

I would consider the existence of consciousness and imagination as examples of things which cannot be proven or adequately explained yet are still 'real'.  We accept that they exist because we feel them and we can measure their effect on ourselves and the world around us.

This would make two bits of circumstantial evidence that would back up the possibility of a spiritual basis of life.

If these two are possible, then a third is possible.

So 'belief' doesnt require faith with no evidence whatsoever.

And clearly by this logic, the second part of your assertion doesnt makes sense either.

"The other simply requires you to go on the existing evidence."

If we are to accept the existence of imagination and consciousness, then we must admit that there is evidence for other unseen things and motivations and there fore would be following the already existing evidence.

There are other logically deducted examples of the irrational of course, 'infinity' and 'zero' being scientifically accepted beliefs.  But I thought I would stick to the two given as examples of unseen (and unseeable) forces that additionally have intelligence and motivation behind them.

It doesnt really matter, whether you accept this evidence as proof or not, but it unecessarily demeans the intelligence of people who do by implying that there really is no evidence at all.

Clearly there is deductive evidence even if you choose to discount any direct evidence.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

We have evidence that imagination and consciousness exist. So I am not completely certain how you can say we cannot prove them. It may be true that our understanding of them is limited or incomplete, but that is very different than saying we have no evidence of their existence.

When it comes to the existence of a god, we have no such evidence. It simply comes down to a belief based on stories that have been passed down from others or written in books, etc. Or perhaps from individual experiences that some have chosen to ascribe to the existence of a god or gods. But certainly nothing that can be shown, using the scientific method, to be evidence of the existence of a god or gods.

Zero and infinity are two things that are absolutely provable  mathematically. They may not be rational, but they are mathematical concepts. I don't really know where you are going with that - I am not a mathematician and do not necessarily work with either concept. In a general sense, "zero" is something that is very real to me in a very rational sense - as in I have zero Oreo cookies left because I ate them all. That's not irrational at all.

When it comes to dealing with concepts like the universe, etc, I consider myself somewhat agnostic. I accept that people much more intelligent that I have made many scientific discoveries and I also understand that many of those discoveries or theories may change over time. Our view of the universe may change in my lifetime - I cannot claim to be an expert here.

People see "evidence" of god all the time in their life. But it's not really evidence of god - or more accurately, it's potentially evidence of things they can't explain but that doesn't make it evidence of god per se.

But I don't care about that. That's basically faith.... and that's one of the great things about religion. At least I think so. I suppose it's one of the difficult things, because it can lead to bad behaviors in some people.

However, my main point was that people often try to say that not believing in god is a "leap of faith" akin to the "leap of faith" required to believe in god. And that's simply not true.

[Adam W]

We have evidence of imagination?

How so?

I'd say the entire collected works of William Shakespeare, for example, would be a pretty decent example. Or the simple fact that you can think of something that doesn't exist or picture something that isn't in the room with you or in your line of sight.

[Adam W]

please explain how you 'prove' zero without relying on the existence of something that is not 'zero'.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need more.

[ronchamblin]

You guys are getting too complex.  The argument becomes fuzzy for my old brain.

We are comparing two entirely different things, money and religion, the former being necessary and practical in order to exchange goods and services, the latter being an imagined fiction from the minds of men, and unnecessary for the growing number of us who, being enlightened as the absurdity of it all, have no need for it. 

Whereas, with rational thinking, we can eliminate religions, as they are not necessary, we cannot eliminate money, as it is a practical thing, needed to exchange goods and services.  Money, if used in a reasonable way, and acquired without placing others in the poorhouse, is necessary and works very well in our economy.  Those who attempt to accumulate obscene amounts of it, even at the expense of destroying the economy, or placing hard working folk in the poorhouse, should be guillotined or shot, as should be the case with the certain high rollers in banking, corporate, or wall street who, not being satisfied with being worth 15 million, strive to be worth 15 billion by relentlessly, aggressively, and without conscience, monetarily rape the working folks of the lower and middle classes.  BTW, if just sentences were judged against individuals of this type, I would volunteer my trigger finger or my hand to drop the blade in order to carry out the sentences.

Our consciousness and our imaginations are the consequences of the electrochemical activity within our brains.  We can imagine all kinds of images and scenarios, and we can speak about these.  This cerebral activity is not necessarily evidence that there is something greater; that is, outside of our world, or in the existence of a god.  It only shows how well our brains have evolved so that our imaginations can roam through all kinds of possibilities.  Sure, anything is possible, even the existence of gods and fairies and unicorns.  But how probable are these possibilities?  Why do some of us have difficulty assigning reasonable probabilities to what is possible?  It seems that the people inclined to avoid critical thought about probabilities, which is a quality enhanced by one’s knowledge of the sciences, are the ones who are inclined to believe the stuff of churches and gods.  But…. all is good.  According to statistics, we are slowly making headway toward having a more non-believing, or secular, society; and this, probably because the behavior of certain individuals, and events have shown too often the absurdities of it all.