who believes in god (these days)

[Jimmy]

Cruixman

Exactly where did I suggest that we are all "secret christians" in my posts?.
Your comment about my "bible" suggests you are assuming I am defending the Bible. Neither the Bible, nor God for that matter, needs me to defend them.

Why are you asking me about the dinosaurs? have I denied their existance?
Your comment about Noah is a sarcasm, not a serious question.

We have limited control via greenhouses and pest control nets, the rest is up to nature! Again your words " well most of us do" is another example of sarcasm. I am well aware of a few tricks to get round the weather and insects, although I have a lot to learn.
Whether or not "most churches. are half deserted" is true I couldn't honestly say. I do know that some of them are not well attended. I also know that there are many people who hold your opinion. On the other hand, I have attended many vibrant churches too.

You have a very relevant point about the church, that it "never seems able to move on." I do agree that the church (or major leaders of the church) find it difficult to "move on" but that does not mean that all believers are like this. Niether does it mean God is like this!

You comment about peoples struggles in third world countries being best suited to religion. You have a point that is true, but I think that the "developed world" is struggling too, psychosocioeconomically and environmentally especially. So, if it comes down to you and/or I, we are failing too! because, as so many people believe these days, man/women thinks that "we control our own world."

Your last comment is interesting too. You say "man created God." I think that often people who say they speak on behalf of God are actually speaking of their own opinions. This does not negate the existence of God, but it does show how we as humans can try to use Gods words for human motives, rather than for the glory of God.

Lastly, I repeat, I have no desire for an argument, but I don't want to avoid the difficult questions that people who don't have a faith have. If you have a question that I can't answer (I mean from a biblical point of view) I would try to help by asking someone more learned than me. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[cruixman]

THANKYOU JIMMY.

i too have no need for argument. but i too enjoy debate. maybe i was sarcastic about the dinosaurs.
but only on a level of believeabilty. but in our day and age. why accept the stories. or as most would regard them these days FAIRY TALES. there is far more to modern man than that. for people of good common sense. the only important part of the bible these days is. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
still very relivant today. and they will be for all time i hope. for me the relevance lies in being a good person. probably put together or exposed by leaders of the day. to keep there subjects under control. if someone believes. well to me they believe. my wife a roman catholic. is a believer. no matter what i say. but thats her choice. maybe we were put here by a super being. but not a god. our written word is still new. in the existence of this earth. so who knows where we came from. the fossil record is not complete. so watch this space jimmy. ps im a jim too

[Rod in Japan]

Moreover these days it is more important for atheists to get involved in the debate because of the growing political influence of faith. When the leader of the free world tells us that god told him to invade iraq and the potential vp actually believes in the biblical version of creation (and BECAUSE of this stands a better chance of being elected) over evolution, then its time for us to get involved. Time was we could just close the door on manic believers, these days they are running the show (lest we forget Tony B just converted to Catholocism).

That's an interesting point. I've read a few detailed things where people claim to have had contact with God (disturbing, ecstatic, profound experiences), and the people in question are calm, rational, honest people who I trust, sceptic though I generally am. That's why I was curious to ask Ellendra and Wombat about their experiences. The people I trust who have had these experiences were NOT told by God to smite anyone, as the leader of the free world claims he was. The people I trust essentially experienced love in a pure and delicious form. People of faith need to get more involved and say clearly to Tony B, "Mate, you have a lot of repentance to do".

So one of my interests in exploring belief in God is to try to define what God is NOT. I would hope people of true faith would say clearly to George Bush and anyone else who will listen, "God did NOT tell you that. You are mistaken, or lying. It must have been something else."

As for being a radical atheist, since you have no idea how you got here and logic can't explain the question of origins (including for God), then I suggest that you're indulging in a faith of your own. For my part, I feel compelled to acknowledge the mystery of life and hope to become more involved in it.

Peace!

[The Riff-Raff Element]

When I was young – call it 17, I don’t remember too clearly – I glibly called myself an atheist. I really had very little understanding of the term, but what I did know was that girlies of a church-going persuasion were less likely sleep with me that those who were not, so it made a great deal of sense to me to plant my flag, as it were, firmly amongst the tribe of the Godless.

As I grew older, and as I trained as a scientist, I came to the conclusion that, for me, atheism was philosophically indefensible. How could I discard a hypothesis – that the evolution of the Universe and the rise of the human race within it was the result of some outside agency – that could not be tested?

Along with the principles that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that observation trumps theory, the principle of testability (and, therefore, the requirement to have something to test) is a keystone of rational assessment.

Since it was therefore clear to me that atheism was as much a faith as, say, Christianity I realised that actually I was not so much one of the Godless as one of the Faithless. So, for convenience’s sake, I began to describe myself as being agnostic, again without having to think to closely about the implications of this position.

Now that I am in my forties (hard to believe, I know, but I do get plenty of fresh air & exercise and I moisturise) I am starting to examine my attitudes to faith a little more closely.

It has to be said that I find elements of both atheistic and theistic faith distasteful. In the case of atheism the determination amongst some of the more militant wings to pretend that their position is not one of faith but somehow a natural consequence of rational thought and their refusal to even communicate with protagonists of other faiths I find particularly obnoxious.

Amongst the theistic faiths I could write a longer list, but then they’ve had more time to practice. Still, I’d suggest that the atheistic states established by the likes of Stalin and Mao did a fairly good job in catching up in the unpleasantness stakes.

I cannot claim as yet to have gained an epiphany one way or the other. On the one hand I find it difficult to accept the principle that a merciful, compassionate God could consign anyone to eternal torment as so many on the foaming right wing of evangelism would have it. Nor can I yet quite rationalise how it is possible that an omnipotent being of infinite love could ever allow evident horrors as we can read about every single day to happen. And why, as Rod points out, would God EVER tell anyone to go forth and smite someone. Actually, he doesn’t: they make it up in order to try and convince the rest of us that they are Right. So it has been through the whole course of recorded history.

On the other, I cannot dismiss those qualities that define humanity – compassion, humour, selflessness – that are so contrary to the concept of a solely selfish gene in the way that, say, Dawkins does: “Darwinian misfires.” Sorry, Ricky, but when the observations don’t fit the theory it is the theory that has to change, not the facts that get discarded.

I will admit that I am actively searching for God, or for satisfactory logic to assume his non-existence. I’m putting considerable effort into reading a mountain of philosophical and theological texts, which seem to have the curious and annoying side effect of sending me to sleep around 11pm and then waking me up at 2am to mull over something I just read. Drives me wife mad, that.

But I find being faithless an uncomfortable position.

[shell]

i have really enjoyed reading this, i believe in evolution,there are christians like me,i also think that the bible refered to dinasaurs in the old testament when they refered to all creatures as nothing is listed by species,you may know otherwise,to me God is timeless so therefore whether a species was created in a minute or by evolution dosn`t matter,i went to a catholic church where the priest had pictures painted of stars,fish, then animals on the church wall,it was beautifully done in gold paint,he was a priest that also believed in evolution,i am not catholic but went there from time to time,for me the stories in the old testament are pointers for life,how and how not to be,the new testament is what i follow more,
on another post someone said they were pagan but not wicca,in my book of beliefs i have pagan but not wicca,what is wicca?i have books on various religions on my bookshelf but havnt come across one for this,
shell

[hedgewitch]

on another post someone said they were pagan but not wicca,in my book of beliefs i have pagan but not wicca,what is wicca?i have books on various religions on my bookshelf but havnt come across one for this,
shell

Wicca itself is a relativley new religion (1959???) and you have Gerald Gardener to thank for it, even though his ideas were not new.
The fundamental basics of Wicca draw strongly on the practices of Ceremonial Magic, and for that you can thank Eliphas Levi and Alistair Crowley (to name just two) with a strong leaning to Nature/Earth worshiping which can be accredited to Celtic and Druid practices.
If you Wiki Gerald Gardner you will get heaps of info.
If you Wiki Wicca (lol) you will end up confused as now-a-days there are many different types of Wicca, just like there are many different types of Christianity.

[MikeM]

on another post someone said they were pagan but not wicca,in my book of beliefs i have pagan but not wicca,what is wicca?i have books on various religions on my bookshelf but havnt come across one for this,
shell

dunno, but I have a wicca basket to keep the logs in.

or have we done that gag already?

[shell]

thanks hedgewitch,and mikem i have a basket for my logs too,havnt seen that joke nor the one about the dyslexic devil worshipper giving his life to santa either,

[rockchick]

Maybe what is most interesting about all this is that dispite having such a wide variety of ways to approach life we are all on ish trying to live a bit more self sufficiently. It doesn't really matter what our personal purpose is in life, we are all here sharing our knowledge and maybe living more of a balanced existence on a planet which we all obviously cherish in our own way.

[hedgewitch]

*high fives rockchick*

[AXJ]

GOD IS LOVE

The rest I leave to George Carlin, he speaks for me :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZlBL8sbJh0

not suitable for the sensative