But seriously . . . atheism?

[Pat McCotter]

If you're not interested in actually providing a proof, you can't just say that it's not possible to prove it doesn't exist, nor does your stated impossibility of proving thus automatically lend any credibility to your argument, namely, that it does exist.

Whoa! That was deep...

Was it actually deep, or just convoluted and run-on-ish? 

Deep. I lost my boots in it.

[MaineShark]

Why are people looking for physical evidence of God based on reason? They will never find physical evidence of God's existence until the apocalypse (the great revealing).

Say the Christians... I can find evidence of god everywhere I go.

I think it's pretty fair to say that the basic difference between pagans and Christians/Jews/Muslims is that pagans believe their god(s) is/are part of the universe, whereas Christians/Jews/Muslims believe their God is outside the universe, even if He sometimes reaches in.

Joe

[Caleb]

Back then, reason and faith were so intermingled as to be inseparable. It required over two millenia, but by now the human race has finally achieved a clear delineation between reason and faith, and the two are not mutually exclusive. Belief in God is faith, not reason, and a man can possess both reason and faith in God simultaneously.

Unlike 2,100 years ago, one does not need to accept the religious aspects of atomism in order to accept the physics of atomism as true. Although atomists may have their physics right, that does not mean they are right about anything else.

Why are people looking for physical evidence of God based on reason? They will never find physical evidence of God's existence until the apocalypse (the great revealing).

Why have so many men, with and without faith, wasted so many centuries discussing this? Faith is faith, reason is reason, and though a man may possess both, the two have nothing to do with each other.

What is faith?  On a fundamental level?  It is trust.  But trust in what? 

There are experiences, and we can trust these experiences [have faith in them] or not trust them [not have faith].  There are things I have experienced where I know for a fact what I experienced.  But my mind still thinks from time to time, "No!  That couldn't have really happened."  It seems to be human nature to second guess ourselves.  That is where faith comes in.  But faith is not blind and should not be blind.  In that case, it is not faith.  It is credulity.

But the experience is one thing.  People who have not experienced something oftentimes must be convinced that such is possible before they will open themselves up to the experience of faith.  Faith as a possibility is often times dismissed a priori.  In this case, the Christian cannot simply say, "Oh well, faith is faith.  Reason is reason.  Sorry, bud, you're on your own."  Peter recommends to Christians:  "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (1 Pet. 3:15)  This oftentimes means meeting people where they are at, not where you are at.

This is at the heart of what theology is (or at least, what it should be.)  Faith is not an explanation.  It just is, it is an implicit trust in that which is known.  But theology hopes to explain the whys and the hows of faith.  Theology is not the end goal, but to the extent that it can help people come to faith, it is valuable. Otherwise, we run the risk of being like those who receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor. 6:1), content to bask in the grace of God ourselves, while ignoring the burden that it should place on our hearts for those who have not yet received it.

That's my take on it anyway.  The fact that these issues have been discussed for millenia demonstrates that these issues affect peoples lives.  Ideas have consequences, and we should not be so naive as to ignore those consequences, or to assume that a person's underlying assumptions about what is possible will not present themselves as obstacles to his coming to faith.  It doesn't follow that "by now the human race has finally achieved a clear delineation between reason and faith."  If anything, man is more lost now than he has ever been.

[Michael Fisher]

Long ago, scientific theories mixed together faith and reason.

Because of this, the more that humans have learned about the universe, the more they have come to reject faith, as the foundations of reason were fused to faith in many lasting deductive scientific theories.

The solution is to stop looking for God under rocks, through telescopes, and within molecules. God is not there to be observed; He is everywhere and beyond human observation. Otherwise, faith would be unnecessary. Evidence nullifies one's need for faith.

Faith fails not because of reason,
But because of false foundations
Laid down by confused ancestors.

'Tis only one
Mechanism
With the power
To find the Lord:
The human heart.

[KurtDaBear]

I come to this discussion late and philosophically deficient.  But I will explain how I came to atheism at a relatively early age, despite having begun life as a Protestant Christian who preached the youth-Sunday sermon for my church in my early teens. (It doesn't require deep philosophy or discussions of angels dancing on the heads of pins.)

Kid is born.
Kid is taught about Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, God and Jesus.
Kid gradually learns there is no Santa, Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny.
Kid begins to wonder when someone will tell him there's no God or Jesus.
Kid learns about volcanoes and floods that kill thousands of people in minutes.
Kid learns about supernovae that wipe out entire solar systems in minutes.
Kid learns that 90 per cent of the species that ever existed on earth are extinct.
Kid wonders when someone is going to remember to tell him there's no God or Jesus.
Kid decides someone forgot to tell him and decides for himself that concept of God and Jesus is absurd and that, if a creature such as the Christian God did exist, he wouldn't be worthy of worship.

Result:  1 confirmed, life-long atheist.
It's just that simple and straightforward, and nothing in my life experience has led me to conclude anything different.

[MaineShark]

Kid decides someone forgot to tell him and decides for himself that concept of God and Jesus is absurd and that, if a creature such as the Christian God did exist, he wouldn't be worthy of worship.

Not everyone believes in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim notion of God.  There are many other gods out there.

Joe

[Raineyrocks]

I come to this discussion late and philosophically deficient

I like that KurtDaBear.  I haven't been able to follow and contribute much to this discussion because it is so confusing.  I'm not sure what I believe anymore but I did have someone tell me once that sometimes you have to go on what you feel not what you read and that made alot of sense to me.  When I look around at the amazing creations in this world I feel that there can be a god that made everything yet when I see all of the suffering it definetely takes away from that feeling.    
I wonder if we'll ever have "the answers".
My brother says if god put us here it was his way of entertaining himself watching and playing a videogame called "us".
Another thing I don't get is this; let's say this little kid named Jane is dying of cancer and the family is praying for her recovery but she dies, then on the other hand there's this little kid name Joe and he's dying of cancer and the family is praying for his recovery and he lives. Of course Joe's family credits prayer to his survival but what about Jane, were her familie's prayers less special?
Just one of the many things I wonder about..........

[Caleb]

The problem of suffering is the single greatest problem facing theology.  I'm not sure that I have ever read a completely satisfactory answer.

[Raineyrocks]

The problem of suffering is the single greatest problem facing theology.  I'm not sure that I have ever read a completely satisfactory answer.

That's true, it is one of the biggest things most people bring up, "why does god allow all of this suffering if he could just stop it?"  The most popular answer to this that I've heard is, "it's a lesson that so and so had to learn and grow from."   I don't know if that answer would really offer anyone much comfort after losing a child.  If we all have lessons to learn, why?  If we learn from them the right way do we go to heaven?
You know the phrase, "god never gives you more than you can handle"?  I watched this story (true story) about this lady, her 7 year old daughter was raped and murdered, the woman killed herself a couple years after, she couldn't live with the pain anymore.  Didn't god give her more than she could handle then?  God had to know she'd kill herself if he knows everything before we even do, right?

I just don't know yet I have an equally hard time believing there is no god because of things I've seen and felt. Maybe god's not involved at all in what goes on in the world?  That theory goes against things in the bible though.

[Michael Fisher]

Why is there suffering? For three reasons:

1) Theodicy.

2) 1 Peter 4:12-16.

3) Suffering brings out the true character of both sufferers and witnesses. No trials, no growth.

The goal is to stop whining, see the good in everything, and love others unquestioningly. Suffering always strengthens us in some way.

[eques]

I've been avoiding posting in this thread, but I just can't keep my mouth shut on this one.

Why is there suffering? For three reasons:

1) Theodicy.

Theodicy is the branch of theology in which people try to explain how suffering can exist given certain attributes of god.  In this, there are probably as many explanations as there are people!

In any case, "Theodicy" isn't a direct answer to "why."  It would probably be more useful if you cited one or a few of the explanations that you agree with.

2) 1 Peter 4:12-16.

That passage refers to Christian suffering and does not address worldwide suffering.  Furthermore, it addresses the suffering that comes from calling yourself a Christian, not the normal hardships of life.

3) Suffering brings out the true character of both sufferers and witnesses. No trials, no growth.

What kind of "true character" is depicted in an individual who is suffering from starvation?  How does this even relate to the massive suffering of victims of natural disasters, war, malicious/negligent state governments?

And the witnesses?  Say what?  Others are suffering for my benefit?  Sorry, I won't have it.

While the travails of life do provide opportunities for growth, pain is not the only method by which one may learn.

Case in point: a child grows, and as his bones, muscles, and organs develop, pain is an indication of something that is wrong.  It acts as an alarm, not as an element that spurs towards greater growth.

Likewise, if a child suffers some sort of trauma, that pain may irreversibly damage that child, causing a fundamentally unhealthy outlook on life that persists throughout adulthood.

The goal is to stop whining, see the good in everything, and love others unquestioningly. Suffering always strengthens us in some way.

No, I think that the goal is to reduce overall suffering.  In areas where we do not have control, then perhaps, yes, try to see the good in it.  But one must also face the facts of the situation.

I think that suffering hardens us, which means something a little different to me than being stronger.  I believe that it is important to be strong, yet flexible.  Suffering tends to harden that flexibility.  So perhaps suffering hardens us in one way.  If struck again in the same way, we will resist that blow.  However, a hardening in one direction can cause a weakening in another.

[Caleb]

as to your points, Michael,

point #1:  I  have to agree with eques.  Theodicy is the theological branch that explores these issues, and there is no consensus. I find some explanations powerful, but only partially.

point #2:  1 Peter 4:12-16 explores the suffering that results to Christians as a result of the free will of others. This is a pretty powerful argument, but it only explains certain types of suffering.

point #3:  I tend to agree with you somewhat, although once again, the argument fails to the extent that people are destroyed.  Certain types of evil it is difficult to justify under any circumstances.

I doubt Christ would tell anyone to stop whining.  He felt pity for them, and tried to alleviate their suffering.

Caleb

[Rocketman]

Yes on the Christ point, Caleb.  Jesus would never have made it as an objectivist.  I'll go for a deist answer (not THE deist answer):


Evil exists in the world God made, which suggests:

a) God may or may not be omnibenevolent (which doesn't mean he isn't benevolent, just imperfect perhaps).

and

b) For the most part we appear to be on our own here, so we have to trust the brains God gave us and use reason to solve our problems.

[Minsk]

The deist/agnostic/atheist triple often feels a lot like the collection of groups that get stuffed into "libertarian"... There is nothing like making very similar decisions for different reasons to produce impassioned debates about very little measurable difference

I'm sure there some fun comparisons to be drawn between deist/agnostic/atheist and constitutionalist/minarchist/anarchist. Wonder if there is any correlation?

[eques]

Off topic, really: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm