I guess I should have made the distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence.

Even the circumstantial evidence for god doesn't fit the definition. Circumstantial evidence although not contributing to directly proving a fact should point logically to the existence of a fact.

I'm yet to see any evidence for any deities that fits into the direct or the circumstantial evidence category.

But is there faith in god or Jesus or whoever present? If not, then is that not atheism? If so, then it could be theistic agnosticism perhaps?

While faith in the unanswerability of the questions is a nice thing, it does not seem to me to have any relation to faith in deity.

In fact, because faith is belief without proof, if someone believes in the unanswerability of the questions, it either opens the door to a faith(but not necessarily religious), as without proof whatever side they lean towards is supported by not proof but belief without it, or one if one decides to not attempt to answer the question due to lack of evidence, then they neither believe nor disbelieve, inadvertantly becoming an atheist, as I explained earlier.

OK, just for the record, I wasn't suggesting that anyone hedge their bets in favor of the "chance" that God exists... it was a joke meant for those who want to argue against his existince.

As I said - I don't particularly care what anyone else believes or what they think of my beliefs. I don't want to be persuaded to change my mind (and I won't put one ounce of effort into changing yours) which is why I hesitate to get involved in discussions like this.

Now pass the bacon...

... you're a Baconist, aren't you?! You're just secretly trying to convert all of us to Baconism using subliminal recruiting messages like this. I know how you Baconists work.


.... do you want Peameal or Backbacon?

Obviously not, or one would be a theist.
You mean, Gnosticism?

It shouldn't. You don't need to believe in something for it to exist. Look at how many yahoos won't believe in evolution - their belief is completely independent of the process' existence.

Agnostics just believe that there is no proof for or against the existence of a god(s). Having any faith in a particular deity would make you a theist or gnostic.

The "leaners" fall into either the theist or atheist category. Agnostics are the bunch that sit back with their beer/herb and say "meh, we don't know. The evidence points this way, but whatevs."

You imply that agnostics are fence-sitters. Really, we're outside the atheist/theist realm.

Well, first of all my concept of god is very different from most. Its not like I am getting so high that I suddenly believe everything in the bible is true.

Its funny because religious people always say that god created man in his image, but the opposite is true - Man created god in his image. Almost all religions are guilty of this because it makes it easier for people to conceive the concept of god.

Sometimes I think there might be a god, I might even up come with some crazy ideas about how he could exist. But the one thing that I always accept is that even if there is a god, I'll never be able to fully understand what god is.

On another note, I find it interesting that you can say with the utmost certanty that no god could love, care, or be interested in humans. Why do you think this?

Exactly my point. Without faith, they are not theists(so technically, atheists).

But without the belief that there is no god, we are simply agnostics.

Agnostics don't reject the idea that god/s may exist. They just say there is not proof adequate to say yes, and not enough proof to say no. An atheist says there is no god, not just that there isn't proof enough for either stance.

It's more than believe/don't believe.

Ok, I clearly am not going to reply to everything... and I'm tired still from work. I think the best bet is the weekend...

But I will say this, using science to disprove or prove religion is a bad trend... because scientific thought is how we learn about our natural world. Any gaps in our understanding of it should not be filled with "God did it" because that effectively puts a stopper on scientific progress.

But also saying that because we know so much, God can't have a role in it, is improper as well because it is the flipside of what was described above. You are essentially saying "because God is not in the previously unknown, God can't exist". You are disproving an already invalid viewpoint. It doesn't give you any headway in argument. Besides, if God designed the universe so meticulously (and I'm using 'designed' in the not ID sense, but in the "He intended it to be as it is" sense), I wouldn't expect Him to violate the laws of nature at every turn possible. In fact, I typically see many of the miracles reported in the Bible, if representative of an actual physical event, could be explained in scientific, mundane ways (who's to say that God didn't use natural processes, directed intentionally, for a purpose). And in the other somewhat rare circumstances where God may have done something that would seemingly violate the laws of nature, it is for a significant purpose, and is not something that is going to be an everyday occurrence.

In my own spiritual experiences, the spiritual lives alongside the otherwise naturally observable world. But, it's a different sense than the physical that you use when interacting with it. You, once you identify your spiritual side, can become open to seeing and feeling things from that side of the world. So, I wouldn't hold out any hope of us finding God in some corner of the universe with any telescopes or things like that. What we should be looking for, though, in searching for evidence of God, is the trail He leaves behind. That is, the effect that He's had on people and on things. Like I said, I believe God interacts with the world daily, but the natural laws of nature certainly do not get violated every day.

So what basis for your belief in this supernatural being who despite not being a part of this universe can still have an affect on it?

Because my nan who I loved very much went through indignities no human should have to go to leading up to her death.

Because everyday I see stories of children as young as 6mths old being raped, abuse, beaten, killed.

Because of children born with no skin, horrible birth abnormalities, birth defects, born blind, deaf, brain damaged.

Because people die from cancer, horrible, painful deaths

Because people who have lived useful, contributive lives get killed in the most horribly painful ways imaginable by other humans who's lives have not been used as well.

Because religion has maimed, killed and tortured millions in gods name. He could have easily stopped this yet hasn't.

Because there are millions of people starving from hunger

That should do for now as to why I can say for a certainty there's no god who loves us, cares for us or is interested in human affairs.

Now an apologetic will use free will, the case for establishing gods sovereignty in the face of Satan's rebellion. But in the years I've put this to Christians who assert to me that god loves us or god is love, I've never had anything approaching a logical answer only.

If you were president of the United States and it was totally in power to stop crime, poverty, child abuse, murders in the entire United States, and you didn't. What would you do?

If you claimed to love the USA, to deeply care about it's people and yet sat back and did nothing, what do you think people would conclude?

Now magnify the president many, many times, attribute him with omnipresence, omnipotence, infinity and a whole host of superlative qualities and consider the fact he does nothing and tell me whether we can conclude that if a god exists that he cares and loves.

The certainty with which I can answer the question is also bolstered by asking, "What shows me that there's a god that does care and love mankind"?

But they don't accept the god/s either. If they don't say yes, then they are not theistic, so they are a-theistic.

The questions of knowing/not knowing are different from believing/not believing/disbelieving.

You know, I'm Pagan so I have many gods to worry about pissing off. But aside from tht what always makes me laugh, those who are of Catholic/Christian denomination always seem to bash on those of us who haven't drank the Kool-Aide. What happened to love thy neighbor?

So what I'm going to do is share some of my favorite quotes from the Pagan community and things I have said to other people who call me a devil-worshipping, cum-guzzling whore.

-Jesus was a Jew

-Christianity has Pagan DNA(don't believe me look it up. and the next time you celebrate Christmas remember where it originally started)

-Born OK the first time

-Why be born again? Why not just grow up?

-Get a taste of religion, like a witch

And lastly, the one I say about 10-15 times a day:

-Its your Hell you burn in it!

Merry meet and merry part. Abide the Law ye must in prefect love and perfect trust. Do what ye will so harm it none.

You ain't kiddin' sister!

xoxo An ex Catholic

You mean recovering Catholic? :-P

22: You shall not smell my cat's breath, for it smells of cat food!
























What?

Nah, the Devil made you do it.

No, he'd have made me triple post for sure.