What is atheism?

[Guest]

.... This differing starting point has a number of consequences that hamper discussions on the topic.

Discussions?

Consequences

The Consequences Of Perceptions

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,

after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,

and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Can Save A Fellow

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,

but have everlasting life. John 3:14-16

Or Not

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned:

but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:17-18

Your Choice

What's Your Love?

Love Blindness

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. John 3:19-20

Or Love Jesus

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. John 3:21

Love Hate

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:36

Or Love Jesus

The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Jeremiah 31:3

Love Folly

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1

Or Love God

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

Love Lies

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth,

but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonian 2:10-12

Or Love Jesus

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Love Denials

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:33

Or Love Jesus

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

Your Choice

[traveller]

I deleted posts that were mocking of Christians and our faith, and threads that were attempting to "teach." Be advised that this is a privately owned Christian message forum. The purpose is to teach about our faith. You may ask questions, and you may fellowship with others here, but you may not mock or try to subvert.

[jmwhalen]

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15:4

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." Psalms 53:1

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: " Romans 1:18-20

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Psalms 19:1

_________________

Per Romans 15:4-

Did you ever notice the LORD God spends relatively little time explaining "from whence/whom we came", including the fact that he exists as the Creator, in His word? That is, He devotes a few chapters to this question in Genesis, and very little going forward. Why is that?

1. The evidence that there is a God is given to man, both internally, and externally-Psalms 19:1, Romans 1:18-20(and others)-no excuse can be offered.

2. Notice Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 says "The fool hath said in his heart" that there is no God, not in his mind. His mind knows, given per 1. above. It is a "heart" problem, folks-always has been with rebellious man, and always will be(Jer. 17:9)

3, And thus, the LORD God spends relatively little time focusing on "Is there a God?", and hence where man came from, and how, but more on how man "got in his dire predicament", and thus instead focuses most of His word/revelation to His rebellious creatures on where he is going, and the only solution being the redemption that is in found only in Christ Jesus, the focus and grand object of Holy Writ. The Lord Jesus Christ, if not explicitly named on each page of the Holy Bible, is implicitly found, and is there, "in the background", on each and every page.

Look for Him, and you will find Him.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[jmwhalen]

___

(underline/bold my emphasis)

"Did you ever notice the LORD God spends relatively little time explaining "from whence/whom we came", including the fact that he exists as the Creator, in His word? That is, He devotes a few chapters to this question in Genesis, and very little going forward. Why is that?" John W

Why is that? I don't know. You tell me. -Cycel

My comment:For the same reason most reasonable(Is. 1:18) people spend very little time trying to explain whether or not electricity, wind, China, love, hate, love, pain, pleasure exist. and from whence they came. Ever "seen" the preceding?

"The Bible throughout presumes the existence of God, but presumption is not proof......It would not occur them to offer proofs for God....'-Cycel

My comment:

1. The LORD God has shown all of us the evidence. The LORD God has revealed Himself in creation:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Psalms 19:1

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse...." Romans 1:20

The incredible beauty of the universe, the incredible beauty of a little baby, the incredible complexity of a living cell or a leaf-all are evidence of an intelligent design, and thus a Designer. The incredible order of the universe is evidence that human beings and the universe were not "accidents"-evidence and reason point to God. This is not only reasonable and legitimate, but an essential first step in knowing God, as it is written:

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS(emphasis mine), and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6

Obviously, as creator and sustainer of all, God must have capabilities and attributes that are far beyond our finite capacity to comprehend. Our reason can only "go so far" following the evidence-this is where faith takes the next step, a step which is beyond the ability of reason to accompany it, but which is in the direction that reason, logic, and the evidence have pointed.

2. "Prove", "offer proofs", that you are the author of this post, using observable, tangible, scientific data.

3.Every philosophy, every theology, every thinking methodology, including yours, Cycel, has within it an ultimate, final authority that is accepted by faith as infallible. This "by faith" acceptance does not mean against or contrary to proof/evidence, but without proof/evidence. In the "world of logic", this is termed a philosophical presupposition. And, in any "debate", both sides, including yours, Cycel, have certain philosophical presuppositions, or "premises", that they hold as true or "valid" without proof. If they deny this, they are intellectually dishonest at best, lying hypocrites at worst.

For example, keep in mind that a large proportion of all modern criticism of the Bible comes from one philosophical presupposition: miracles do not occur.

"John, knowing within our hearts is a metaphor for the mind. The heart is a muscle, it knows nothing. The seat of all thought is the brain. Investigate the condition of any dementia patient and you will recognize that. The ancients, and many moderns as well, perhaps, thought the heart was the resting place of the soul. I am old enough to remember the flap caused when Dr. Bernard carried out the first human heart transplants. Some portions of the public were very concerned by this. It even gave me pause. I had to remind myself that the heart is only a muscle. The fact remains none of our emotions rest with the heart. All our emotions, and all our thoughts, are contained in the brain. Arguing a heart/mind dichotomy as you have done is meaningless."-Cycel

My comment:

1. What is your infallible source authority for the preceding "argument"??

2.Do not confuse your lack of understanding the word of God(I Cornithians 2:14), with error on the part of what the LORD God wrote. The Holy Bible distinguishes between the heart and the mind.

3. "I had to remind myself that the heart is only a muscle"-Cycel

From whence does love come, the brain, or the heart, or....? Prove love exists, using observable, tangible, scientific data. Prove you have suffered pain or pleasure from a physical test, i.e., observable, tangible, scientific data. Tell all of us how you measure love, pain, or pleasure by physical standards.

4. " The seat of all thought is the brain. Investigate the condition of any dementia patient and you will recognize that. "Cycel

Prove "thought" exists using observable, tangible, scientific data.

Do, you observe "the condition of any dementia patient"? Have you observed this patient's "thoughts" to make this "infallible" assessment/judgment?

"I did look. I did not find. My heart (brain) tells me there is no evidence in the Bible for the existence of God. Those who think they discern evidence do so only because they already believe. Hence, a Moslem who reads the Koran will find evidence of Allah and proof that Mohamed is his prophet. Neither you nor I will find anything compelling there. We are not believers in the holy Koran and the errors that persuade the peoples of the Islamic word will seem for us, glaring. You and I both would probably agree that the Muslims are blinded by their faith.

Do you think that Islamists might argue that if you were to read the Koran you would know its truth in your heart?

"-Cycel

My comment: "evidence"

1. Prove that you are the author of this post, using observable, tangible, scientific data.

2. You have the wrong conception of faith. And everyone exercises, w/o exception, faith, including yourself, Cycel, and, as stated previously, has an ultimate, final authority that is accepted by faith as infallible. Present an argument, not a cliche.

3."My heart (brain) tells me there is no evidence in the Bible for the existence of God"-Cycel

Prove that your brain produced "thoughts", exists using observable, tangible, scientific data.

The LORD God clearly states why he revealed himself in nature. That being so, then no man would have the excuse of "I didn't know God existed." If God has not touched the heart of an individual, including you, Cycel, then all the science, logic, or intellectual banter is not going to make the slightest bit of difference, including this exchange. I cannot save(to be delivered from a danger)anyone, including you-only the LORD God can.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[Botz]

Negative_Cool...Nobody changes their mind about something without evidence to support the change. I was born without a belief in God and until there is evidence to change that position I'm incapable of changing my position.

Hi N-C, good to meet you. I'll just jump straight in, and try to be succinct.

There is plenty of evidence, just look around you. Someone once said 'Nature is a finger that points upwards to G-d.' and another once wrote.... 'Man made the atom-bomb, but never could design a daisy.'

You will find that G-d has provided many other forms of evidence, including His testimony through History, Archaeology, Science, Writings, People, and most of all through the invisible wind of the Holy Spirit.

It is whether you are prepared to even consider these things evidence, and act accordingly, or whether you are saying the evidence provided is insufficient, and in your case irrelevant, and that its G-ds job to come and knock on your front door and introduce Himself personally.

I do not claim that there is no God, I just haven't been given a reason to believe that there is.

Whether you or I even claim there is no G-d, will hardly change the truth

I think our own mortality, and our sinfulness are a couple of reasons for checking out at least the possibility that G-d exists...and it's not like here in the West we haven't heard of a Saviour...who came to save us from sin, and offer us eternal life...its a case of finding out if this/He is really true...or some wild tale of fantasy made up to help weak people hobble through the vagaries of life as painlessly as possible.

I have placed just one small portion of the Bible below, which is worth a look.... the disciples are so like us..slow to believe.

Best Regards. Botz

Luke 24:6

[jmwhalen]

"Did you ever notice the LORD God spends relatively little time explaining "from whence/whom we came", including the fact that he exists as the Creator, in His word? That is, He devotes a few chapters to this question in Genesis, and very little going forward. Why is that?"- John W

Why is that? I don't know. You tell me. -Cycel

"My comment:For the same reason most reasonable(Is. 1:18) people spend very little time trying to explain whether or not electricity, wind, China, love, hate, love, pain, pleasure exist. and from whence they came. Ever "seen" the preceding?"-John W

"I find it insulting that you consider the search for knowledge and understanding to be unreasonable. It is this attitude that ignorance is a virtue that has stood in the way of the advancement of humanity for thousands of years. Next time you go to the doctor and receive antibiotics, be thankful that Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was not one of your "reasonable people".

As for the rest of your comment, we can measure all these things and can see their direct effect on the world. God on the other hand cannot be measured or quantified nor can the effects attributed to Him be verified. Additionally, we have evidence that "miracles" often attributed to God are in fact natural phenomena or hoaxes perpetrated by His followers."-Cycel

One premise at a time:

So. you agree, then, that evidence does not include only that which can be physically seen by the eye-one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically-correct? You cannot hear, taste, touch, smell light, for example. So, you agree, then, that evidence does not include only that which can be heard, tasted, or touched, or smelled?You cannot see electricity, wind, for example, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it, nor hear it. You can observe the effect of it, and you can feel it. Correct?

You say, you argue, " we can measure all these things and can see their direct effect on the world." Show us how you measure love, hate, pain, pleasure......Can these be "measured or quantified"? Can love, hate, pain, pleasure...be heard, seen, touched, seen, or smelled? Only 1 out of 5 ? Show us how the effects of love, hate, pain, pleasure...can be proved, exist, based on one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically.

"we can measure all these things and can see their direct effect on the world...".

Can you measure "darkness"?Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing, and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to

make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darker darkness?

"direct effect on the world " is not evidence according to the rules of empirical, stable, protocol, termed "science". The "scientific method" is the rational analysis of empirical data. In everyday English, science is how we find out what is true about the world, by observing things and doing experiments, and drawing rational (logical) conclusions from the evidence we gather. I can argue, then, by your own premise, that God exists, because I can "see His direct effect on the world."

"God on the other hand cannot be measured or quantified nor can the effects attributed to Him be verified."-Cycel

consider:

Pleasure, for example, is not at all physical. You say, "What? Are you crazy? I eat food, it gives me pleasure." I understand that. "I have sex, it gives me pleasure." I understand that.

You do things that are physical, that have an impact on your physical body, but the sensation of pleasure is not in your body. You know why? You know how I know this? Because you cannot measure pleasure by physical standards. How can you possibly measure such a thing? You might measure it in neurological activity. You know, C-fibers firing. I eat something, it tastes good, and we can track how the neurological activity takes place in my body when I am eating something that is pleasurable. But now a critical question. How do you know that this particular neurological activity--strawberries touching the tongue, creating a chemical response through the body--how does anyone know that that activity feels good? You can't know that by looking at your machine. Someone's got to tell you how it feels. That's how. You need the report so that you can correlate specific brain activity with the feeling of pleasure or the feeling of pain.

Somebody's got to say that that particular sensation feels good or hurts, before you can judge whether any brain state is pleasurable or painful. In other words, the feelings must come first, then the scientific assessment because there is a correlation going on here. This makes the point that the pleasure isn't in the hardware. It's not in the neurological connections of the body. The pleasure is someplace else. It is in the soul. In order to do a correlation, you must have two different things that coincide with each other. In this case, neurological activity, nerve responses to a strawberry on the tip of your tongue, and a conscious feeling, the pleasurable taste of strawberry. They are two different things. You must have a conscious first person report about his feelings before you can correlate those feelings with any particular brain activity. Therefore, the two must be different.

The first one is physical and can be measured and observed physically. Touching the strawberry to your tongue and measuring the neurological response. But you don't know if that neurological response produces pain or pleasure until somebody tells you from their conscious experience, an experience that no imaginable physical test can ever get at. It must be reported. The physical activity is in the body. The feeling is in the soul. The brain and the soul are two different things so science can't even measure a feeling of pleasure, only presumably the physical brain states that correlate with the pleasure.

We all know this in a kind of rough and ready way. Somebody gives you a vigorous backrub. They have to ask whether it feel good or hurts? In other words, the physical state doesn't tell us by itself. You can put all kind of electrodes all over a person's body while you are giving them a tough, hard backrub and you will still have to ask them how it feels because none of the neurological testing can tell you how it feels. Does that feel good or does that hurt? We need a report from a conscious mind, a mind that can feel the difference.

How about this response: It hurts, but it feels good. Have you ever said that? Now, you make sense out of that in a purely physicalist way. It's painful, but I like it. It's a good pain. You see, even if the pain could be reduced to a mere physiological, neurological response, even if the meters could show that pain was really being felt, there is still an additional element of passing judgment on it, making an assessment, and those things clearly are not physical.

Truth, love, sex-these cannot be weighed, they do not have a shape, they do not have a physical texture, I cannot hear them..None of these can be classified, studied, probed, or analyzed empirically by the five senses using science. None of these are physical. If they are not physical, the senses cannot apprehend them. And if the senses cannot apprehend them, then science can't say anything about them. In other words, science can't say anything about any of these things. You cannot measure any of these by physical standards.

Many "believe"(belief and the truth are independent), that science is the only thing that gives reliable information about the world, i.e., "I will stay with science, because that tells me true things about the world"= scientism. Why? In their understanding, only physical things exist, and science is best adapted to probe the physical world. This is false-it makes an assumption. A moment's reflection shows us that the most important things in the world are not physical at all(Truth, love,sex(actually sexual pleasure)) . And if they are not physical, and science measures only physical things, then science can't tell us anything about truth, love,sexual pleasure. Therefore, there is no scientific evidence that truth, love, sexual pleasure..... exist. How can I know (prove) PHYSICALLY whether someone is " in love"......?

Again, indeed, for science to work at all, we need a soul on the inside to tell us what the outside feels like, looks like, smells like, tastes like and sounds like-the 5 senses of touch, sight, smell, taste, hear. Though science might probe the sense of smell and the sense of sight,for example, science cannot tell us anything, not one single thing about the sensation of smell and the sensation of sight. Somebody's got to report that. Someone on the inside has to be a witness; science is on the outside. The sensation has to be a first person report, and this is why science, necessarily a third person activity, cannot report on it. So, rather than science being the beginning and end of all knowledge, science is dependent on the soul to give it its information. To prove the point, you can't know from any physical test whether a person is in pain or in pleasure. There is no scientific test that can tell you that. Even if there was, even pain can be pleasurable to some people. Thus, you still need the report. If you say, "Of course we can know physically whether a person is in pain or pleasure". I ask, "How's that"?

I know which nerves are the pain nerves, and that's how I know when somebody is in pain. What do you mean? How do you know which are the pain nerves? Well, because, and then you are going to have to say, "When I pluck this kind of nerve, people tell me it hurts." And that will be the end of your argument. Why? Because you can't know which are the pain nerves. That is, you cannot know which nerves correlate with the feeling of pain, unless somebody reports to you the feeling. Therefore, the feeling is not the same as the nerves. The nerves just lead and produce the feeling in the soul. The soul uses the nerves to explore its world and feel either pain or pleasure, or any of a number of other things.

The inevitable conclusion-science doesn't tell us anything important. All of the important things are intangibles, things that don't lend themselves to scientific discovery or to scientific analysis. Now one thing that science can do, and this it often does, it says that those things we thought were most important, in the end, turn out to be very insignificant or meaningless in the long run. Why would science say that? Precisely because science cannot address that. The attitude is, since science can't speak to it, then it must not be significant. Is this arrogance, or what?!

Hence, the post you wrote, and my response:

"I had to remind myself that the heart is only a muscle"-Cycel

Prove love exists, using observable, tangible, scientific data. Prove you have suffered pain or pleasure from a physical test, i.e., observable, tangible, scientific data. Tell all of us how you measure love, pain, or pleasure by physical standards. -John W

" The seat of all thought is the brain. Investigate the condition of any dementia patient and you will recognize that."-Cycel

"Prove "thought" exists using observable, tangible, scientific data."-John W

Do, you observe "the condition of any dementia patient"? Have you observed this patient's "thoughts" to make this "infallible" assessment/judgment? -John W

"I did look. I did not find. My heart (brain) tells me there is no evidence in the Bible for the existence of God. Those who think they discern evidence do so only because they already believe. Hence, a Moslem who reads the Koran will find evidence of Allah and proof that Mohamed is his prophet. Neither you nor I will find anything compelling there. We are not believers in the holy Koran and the errors that persuade the peoples of the Islamic word will seem for us, glaring. You and I both would probably agree that the Muslims are blinded by their faith.

Do you think that Islamists might argue that if you were to read the Koran you would know its truth in your heart?" "-Cycel

"My comment: "evidence"

1. Prove that you are the author of this post, using observable, tangible, scientific data.

2. You have the wrong conception of faith. And everyone exercises, w/o exception, faith, including yourself, Cycel, and, as stated previously, has an ultimate, final authority that is accepted by faith as infallible. Present an argument, not a cliche.

3."My heart (brain) tells me there is no evidence in the Bible for the existence of God"-Cycel

Prove that your brain produced "thoughts", exists using observable, tangible, scientific data. " John W

"From whence does love come, the brain, or the heart, or....? Prove love exists, using observable, tangible, scientific data. Prove you have suffered pain or pleasure from a physical test, i.e., observable, tangible, scientific data. Tell all of us how you measure love, pain, or pleasure by physical standards"-John W

"Emotions can be "observed" via MRI in the brain. Emotions also have a chemical basis which can also be measured. Click for a list of some of these chemicals and how they relate to emotion." -Cycel

See preceding for my response....-".... science is dependent on the soul to give it its information. To prove the point, you can't know from any physical test whether a person is in pain or in pleasure...", or "in love", or......

"When you can find a "God particle" or measure some "prayer waves" and then use this data to predict an outcome, then we will be on equal footing. Until then, your claims about God carry no more authority than the claims made by Muslims, Hindus, Astrologers, Pagans, Homoepaths, Buddists, Accupuncturists or Native American Shamans.

Nobody changes their mind about something without evidence to support the change. I was born without a belief in God and until there is evidence to change that position I'm incapable of changing my position.

I do not claim that there is no God, I just haven't been given a reason to believe that there is."-Cytel

"when you can find a 'God particle; or measure some 'prayer waves'"-Cytel

Find a "Love/hate/pain/ pleasure...... particle" for us, and find "Love/hate/pain/ pleasure......waves" for us.

"can the effects attributed to Him be verified."-Cytel

And, while you are at it, prove that it was you that typed these posts. Provide evidence from one of the 5 senses used to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically. And it will not do to say "look at your computer monitor" as evidence, based on your own argument. For what I am seeing is not the actual "post" you typed when you typed it(if it was you) What I am really "seeing" is an "impression" of your post(if it was you) carried by light waves into my eyes and then along nerve connections to my brain.

How do we know it was you, how do we know that the effect of the post we view can be attributed to you, can be "verified"? None of us where there.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[Guest]

Luke 24:6

[Guest]

[Botz]

Hi Botz, thanks for the reply.

There is plenty of evidence, just look around you. Someone once said 'Nature is a finger that points upwards to G-d.' and another once wrote.... 'Man made the atom-bomb, but never could design a daisy.'

I've seen plenty of attempts at showing nature points to God but remain unconvinced. Ray Comfort's "Banana Proof" for example, I'm guessing he has never seen a wild banana and doesn't understand that selective breeding to produce the wonderfully designed bananas we see in our shops today testifies to the veracity of evolution. Even if these things that are claimed to be evidence of a deity were actually evidence of a deity, I fail to see how you then make the jump to any specific deity.

You don't have to make a jump to any specific deity...it is just a beginning...an attempt to see and reach out to G-d.

You will find that G-d has provided many other forms of evidence, including His testimony through History, Archaeology, Science, Writings, People, and most of all through the invisible wind of the Holy Spirit.

Again, this evidence is tenuous. Tolstoy's War and Peace references many people and places that can be independently verified as having existed, however the story is still fiction. While historical and archaeological evidence may support some parts of the bible they also refute other parts. As for scientific evidence of the existence of God I'm unaware of any. If the personal experiences of people is evidence then there are more people with no evidence of your God than there is with evidence of your God. And finally, if the most evidence is in the form of some invisible Holy Spirit, that doesn't say a great deal about either your standard of evidence or the other evidences you claim are everywhere.

Well regarding the last part Jesus Himself explained it this way...Jn 3:6

[Guest Gottisttot]

According to the Oxford Dictionary, atheism is defined as:

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|

noun

the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Let's look at the word 'theory' a little closer. As described by Oxford...

theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē|

noun ( pl. -ries)

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.

• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory.

• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.

• Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

PHRASES

in theory used in describing what is supposed to happen or be possible, usually with the implication that it does not in fact happen : in theory, things can only get better; in practice, they may well become a lot worse.

Now let us look at the word "belief" - again, according to Oxford...

belief |biˈlēf|

noun

1 an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists : his belief in God | a belief that solitude nourishes creativity.

• something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction : c.ontrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language | we're prepared to fight for our beliefs.

See note at opinion .

• a religious conviction : Christian beliefs | I'm afraid to say belief has gone | local beliefs and customs.

2 ( belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something : a belief in democratic politics | I've still got belief in myself.

PHRASES

be of the belief that hold the opinion that; think : I am firmly of the belief that we need to improve our product.

beyond belief astonishingly good or bad; incredible : riches beyond belief | the driving we have witnessed was beyond belief.

in the belief that thinking or believing that : he took the property in the belief that he had consent.

to the best of my belief in my genuine opinion; as far as I know : to the best of my belief, Francis never made a will.

With this information at hand, let us expand upon the definition of atheist...

A system of ideas or an acceptance that a statement is true intended to explain that God does not exist.

So far as I can tell, based on this description of atheism, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other for the existence of [a] God. Instead, by definition, it sounds to me to be more of a "choice" and therefore, atheism is boiled down to another faith-based religion with the mantra that there is no God.

At least with Christianity, we chose to believe in God due in part to the fact that we have a tangible product - the Bible. Moreover, through the years, we have learned that much of history and archaeology has confirmed much of the Biblical accounts. No longer is the Christian limited to believing in God based on faith alone, but the Christian can also line up the Biblical account with the historical and archaeological accounts. Where does this leave atheism? What evidence does atheism provide to justify their claim that God does not exist? So far, it is theory and a "belief" (aka faith) that God does not exist. But what are they basing this belief system upon?

I find the idea of atheism much more difficult to place my faith in than Christianity.

And what of agnosticism?

agnostic |agˈn

Edited December 3, 2008 by Gottisttot