Religion

[gater2]

Why on earth not? I was an atheist in my school years and remain convinced that I don't need a crutch to get me through life.

I'm willing to bet you have something that drives you, gives you a reason to live. Friends, family, BCFC, whatever. That's your 'crutch' as you say.

[ruraldean]

Really interesting debate has developed since I last looked.

It's interesting you mention 'evidence', a phrase that often gets thrown around these debates. When you say evidence, I presume you don't mean 'proof'? As Philip Belgrave has mentioned, no one has and no one will 'prove' that God doesn't exist. If it had been proved that God doesn't exist, no one would believe in him in this world.

I mean evidence. If I want to believe in the true, compassionate, loving God (of the New Testament at least) then I would look for evidence of such a being. A small boy was killed in church in the last week of so. He was hit by a bullet fired in the air some 5 miles away by somebody celebrating. The bullet was heard coming through the church roof by the parents just before they saw their son fall. This is not a great advert for the God who puts his people above all others.

And by the way, your last sentence describes the proving of a negative, something we should drop from sensible debate.

I agree with you that there has to be an element of blind faith in God, but I would suggest that there has to be an element of blind faith in everythin we do as human beings, and very rarely, if ever can we reach 100% proof of anything.

There is blind faith in everything. But faith exercised through experience. When I drive my car I have faith the brakes will work. But actually this turns out not to be faith, but belief. I watched the mechanic work on my car. I shook his hand and spoke to him. He's being doing his job for years. So my "faith" turns out to be evidence accumulated through experience.

If you think about it, I can't prove that I won't get run over by a bus next time I walk out of my house, but that doesn't mean I'm never going to walk out of my house. (An example I used earlier): I can't prove my fiancee won't cheat on me, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to marry her. So we always have to put our trust in things/people/decisions we make on a daily basis, without proof.

Of course we do. But it's then a big leap to the proposition of an eternal, sentient being who's omnipresent, omnipotent, and who cares about every living creature on this tiny speck of dust, here in this known universe.

I'm sure you'll then say to me, well you can say beyond reasonable doubt that I won't get run over by a bus when I walk outside etc., but with God, you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he exists, so he probably doesn't. I would reply in two ways for this. Firstly, just because you say this doesn't mean he's not there. Just because something seems like it's not there, doesn't mean it can't happen. It was beyond all reasonable doubt that Peteborough would come back from 4-0 at half time to draw with Cardiff the other week, but that did happen!

I agree, but then I've never said it did. I stated at the very beginning that I'm a de facto atheist. I see no evidence for God, therefore he has no influence on my life and I'm free to behave as if he didn't exist. I also said that I believed it to be arrogant to take the position of a "God-denier" because (as I've previously said) we can't deny the existence of Santa. Although I'll give you that we can have a bloody good guess.

Secondly I would suggest, that subconsciously humanity acknowlegdes believing against all the odds is a good thing. In films/books/theatre etc. you hear phrases like, 'believe against all the odds', 'don't give up hope', 'trust in me' etc. It's been mentioned (not just by you), that atheists can be happy/satisfied with the fact that life is just as it is; we live, we grow up, we work (most of us), 9-5 during the week, party a weekends ****il this gets boring), we retire, then we die; that's it. I certainly think it is possible to be happy as an atheist (I have many atheist friends who are happy). But I would suggest that the history of the arts, film, the greatest stories, music etc. points to the fact that people do want more than the mundane fact that we are simply a bunch of atoms which have accidently come together to form humans. You can disagree with me if yo want, and that's fine, but for me, humanity is always trying to look beyond itself for fulfilment, beyond the normal drudgery of normal, everyday life, and the fact that 'this is it: I live, I die, the end', even if they don't admit it. What is it about the ecstacy of celebrating a last min goal for City, doing drugs, enjoying music (or even having an orgasm!) that makes these things so good? I think it is that even for a few seconds we can forget the drudgery of normalness, and the simple fact that 'this is it'. The problem, of course, is that all these things have to come to an end, and we have to go back to normalness. Look at figures in our society; although we have almost everything we want, we are not truely satisfied as a society. You just have to look at the news every night to see the frustration and anger and lack of fulfilment people feel, to see that people aren't satisfied; everyone is always looking for the next thrill.

You make my point well. Humans do want more, and sometimes if more doesn't exist, then we make things up to fill the gaps.

Again, I appreciate you can disagree with me, but for me, this (as well as countless other examples in classic books, films, art etc.) shows me people are dissatisfied with the reality their world gives them, and they are constantly looking outside themselves for fulfilment, whether they realise it or not.

My second point (before this gets really long!), is that 'evidence', I believe is often misconstrued. Some of the cleverest people I know (and I know quite a few with my father having been a tutor at Oxford university (not saying you have to go to Oxford to be clever, but you know what I mean)) are Christians, not because they have evidence for God in the way you might think. I will freely admit I have never seen a vision of angels or God physically in front of me. I have never physically heard God's voice. I have never seen someones arm grow back as a miracle, but for me, evidence comes in a much more subtle way. At times God will feel so far away that I do doubt he is there - I'm willing to admit that. But at other times, he is so close to me, and I experience him so deeply, that I have no doubt. This experience can come in many different ways, from singing songs of worship, to sitting down and chatting to Steve or Scott who are homeless and hang out near the tube stop where I live: I believe I see and experience God in them. I experience and have evidence for God when I see a beautiful sunset or I'm walking in the Lake district or the alps. Before you say it, I acknowledge you can put this as a warm fuzzy feeling you can explain from evolution. But firstly (as I said above), this doesn't exclude the possibility of God, and secondly (also above), I believe the desire we have to experience beauty like this and our desire for it never to end (and consequently our frustration when it does), points to a desire for heaven, when this beauty and peace will never end.

I'm afraid it's see my previous answer. I'm not doubting the level of desire we have for something more. I'm claiming that there is no evidence to support the premise that the something more is the omnipotent being, and that he exists.

That was rather long winded, and I hope it makes sense as an apologetic of theism/faith.

Finally, I would like to say that I am probably what you call an 'evangelical' in the sense that I would love my friends and family to experience God the way I do, but I certainly don't judge them and tell them they're going to hell if they don't 'convert' (I hate that word anyway). I also do 'choose' to believe every day in God (to an extent) as I acknowledge that there is also evidence for God not existing. As a result I am faced with two alternatives, neither of which I can prove, and I just choose to believe in God (based on the evidence I said above). You choose not to, based on the lack of evidence (again: not proof). Also, I definitely don't live my life based on the 'jam tomorrow' mentality (as I have tried to explain in previous posts on this thread), and I get very frustrated with Christians who do this - and I acknowledge there are many!

I would love to choose to believe in God. I tried it for 20 years in total but in the end you can't choose to believe in something you can't. But thank you for the points.

Very interesting debate, and thanks everyone for contributing so well!

[Philip Belgrave]

Really interesting debate has developed since I last looked. Ruraldean in particular, I have been very interested to read what you have to say as you've obviously thought about this a lot. You seem to be coming at this from a similar position to me (I have also studied theology - although not to become anything in the church, just the academix stuff), but we have come to very different opinions. As a result I'd like to go through and write some (good natured) reflections on what you have said.

It's interesting you mention 'evidence', a phrase that often gets thrown around these debates. When you say evidence, I presume you don't mean 'proof'? As Philip Belgrave has mentioned, no one has and no one will 'prove' that God doesn't exist. If it had been proved that God doesn't exist, no one would believe in him in this world.

Although I respect Dawkins' and many other atheists' positions because they have evidently thought about the issue and come to a conclusion, I do question the emphasis atheists put on 'evidence' and (they say) as a result, 'proof'. Dawkins essentially says, 'I won't believe in this God thing unless I see any proof he exists, and I don't see any, so I won't'. I agree with you that there has to be an element of blind faith in God, but I would suggest that there has to be an element of blind faith in everythin we do as human beings, and very rarely, if ever can we reach 100% proof of anything.

If you think about it, I can't prove that I won't get run over by a bus next time I walk out of my house, but that doesn't mean I'm never going to walk out of my house. (An example I used earlier): I can't prove my fiancee won't cheat on me, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to marry her. So we always have to put our trust in things/people/decisions we make on a daily basis, without proof.

I'm sure you'll then say to me, well you can say beyond reasonable doubt that I won't get run over by a bus when I walk outside etc., but with God, you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he exists, so he probably doesn't. I would reply in two ways for this. Firstly, just because you say this doesn't mean he's not there. Just because something seems like it's not there, doesn't mean it can't happen. It was beyond all reasonable doubt that Peteborough would come back from 4-0 at half time to draw with Cardiff the other week, but that did happen!

Secondly I would suggest, that subconsciously humanity acknowlegdes believing against all the odds is a good thing. In films/books/theatre etc. you hear phrases like, 'believe against all the odds', 'don't give up hope', 'trust in me' etc. It's been mentioned (not just by you), that atheists can be happy/satisfied with the fact that life is just as it is; we live, we grow up, we work (most of us), 9-5 during the week, party a weekends ****il this gets boring), we retire, then we die; that's it. I certainly think it is possible to be happy as an atheist (I have many atheist friends who are happy). But I would suggest that the history of the arts, film, the greatest stories, music etc. points to the fact that people do want more than the mundane fact that we are simply a bunch of atoms which have accidently come together to form humans. You can disagree with me if yo want, and that's fine, but for me, humanity is always trying to look beyond itself for fulfilment, beyond the normal drudgery of normal, everyday life, and the fact that 'this is it: I live, I die, the end', even if they don't admit it. What is it about the ecstacy of celebrating a last min goal for City, doing drugs, enjoying music (or even having an orgasm!) that makes these things so good? I think it is that even for a few seconds we can forget the drudgery of normalness, and the simple fact that 'this is it'. The problem, of course, is that all these things have to come to an end, and we have to go back to normalness. Look at figures in our society; although we have almost everything we want, we are not truely satisfied as a society. You just have to look at the news every night to see the frustration and anger and lack of fulfilment people feel, to see that people aren't satisfied; everyone is always looking for the next thrill.

Look at lyrics in music. Here is Avril Lavigne (yes I know, but it illustrates my point) - not a believer in God:

Sometimes I get so weird

I even freak myself out

I laugh myself to sleep

It's my lullaby

Sometimes I drive so fast

Just to feel the danger

I wanna scream

It makes me feel alive

Is it enough to love?

Is it enough to breathe?

Somebody rip my heart out

And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die?

Somebody save my life

I'd rather be anything but ordinary please

To walk within the lines

Would make my life so boring

I want to know that I

Have been to the extreme

So knock me off my feet

Come on now give it to me

Anything to make me feel alive

The line, 'somebody save my life', shows to me everyone is craving to truely live rather than just exist, and for me, this shows a frustration with the whole, 'get born, live, die, the end' paradigm.

Also Robbie Williams:

I don't wanna die,

But I ain't keen on living either.

Before I fall in love,

I'm preparing to leave her.

I scare myself to death,

That's why I keep on running.

Before I've arrived, I can see myself coming.

(chorus)

I just wanna feel real love,

Feel the home that I live in.

'cause I got too much life,

Running through my veins, going to waste.

And I need to feel, real love

And a life ever after.

I cannot get enough.

Again, I appreciate you can disagree with me, but for me, this (as well as countless other examples in classic books, films, art etc.) shows me people are dissatisfied with the reality their world gives them, and they are constantly looking outside themselves for fulfilment, whether they realise it or not.

My second point (before this gets really long!), is that 'evidence', I believe is often misconstrued. Some of the cleverest people I know (and I know quite a few with my father having been a tutor at Oxford university (not saying you have to go to Oxford to be clever, but you know what I mean)) are Christians, not because they have evidence for God in the way you might think. I will freely admit I have never seen a vision of angels or God physically in front of me. I have never physically heard God's voice. I have never seen someones arm grow back as a miracle, but for me, evidence comes in a much more subtle way. At times God will feel so far away that I do doubt he is there - I'm willing to admit that. But at other times, he is so close to me, and I experience him so deeply, that I have no doubt. This experience can come in many different ways, from singing songs of worship, to sitting down and chatting to Steve or Scott who are homeless and hang out near the tube stop where I live: I believe I see and experience God in them. I experience and have evidence for God when I see a beautiful sunset or I'm walking in the Lake district or the alps. Before you say it, I acknowledge you can put this as a warm fuzzy feeling you can explain from evolution. But firstly (as I said above), this doesn't exclude the possibility of God, and secondly (also above), I believe the desire we have to experience beauty like this and our desire for it never to end (and consequently our frustration when it does), points to a desire for heaven, when this beauty and peace will never end.

That was rather long winded, and I hope it makes sense as an apologetic of theism/faith.

Finally, I would like to say that I am probably what you call an 'evangelical' in the sense that I would love my friends and family to experience God the way I do, but I certainly don't judge them and tell them they're going to hell if they don't 'convert' (I hate that word anyway). I also do 'choose' to believe every day in God (to an extent) as I acknowledge that there is also evidence for God not existing. As a result I am faced with two alternatives, neither of which I can prove, and I just choose to believe in God (based on the evidence I said above). You choose not to, based on the lack of evidence (again: not proof). Also, I definitely don't live my life based on the 'jam tomorrow' mentality (as I have tried to explain in previous posts on this thread), and I get very frustrated with Christians who do this - and I acknowledge there are many!

Very interesting debate, and thanks everyone for contributing so well!

My compliments sir-nicely expressed. ,and the essential distinction between ëvidence""on the one hand and "proof"on the other is well made.

Someone said somewhere- perhaps you know the source, to the effect that there is '"a God-shaped" hole in people's makeup which we are always trying to fill by one means or another: and if formalized religion does not fill the bill then we will always seek substitutes.

[ruraldean]

Double post.

[gater2]

It's interesting you mention 'evidence', a phrase that often gets thrown around these debates. When you say evidence, I presume you don't mean 'proof'? As Philip Belgrave has mentioned, no one has and no one will 'prove' that God doesn't exist. If it had been proved that God doesn't exist, no one would believe in him in this world.

I mean evidence. If I want to believe in the true, compassionate, loving God (of the New Testament at least) then I would look for evidence of such a being. A small boy was killed in church in the last week of so. He was hit by a bullet fired in the air some 5 miles away by somebody celebrating. The bullet was heard coming through the church roof by the parents just before they saw their son fall. This is not a great advert for the God who puts his people above all others.

Not wanting to get back into this too much (as it was done a lot in above posts on this discussion), but three points: firstly, just because bad things happen (and I agree this is a tragedy, the situation you suggest here), shouldn't take away the 'evidence' for this 'loving God'. The joy that we feel, be it seeing a loved one we haven't seen in ages, having a child born, getting married, celebrating a City goal, can be (note I don't say, 'are') evidence for a loving God. Secondly (and repeating my points from above), I agree this is very hard to defend from a God of love. I have struggled with this many time, especially with Haiti just having happened. I could offer possible explanations, none of which you would buy, but also none of which I would say fully explain the problem. One quick example: God created the earth, doesn't mean he creates evil: a chair maker makes a chair, and if a break happens in the chair, he/she didn't 'make' the break, but he/she created it with the possibility of the break (I can try and expand on this if you want - although I'm sure you've heard it before).

Thirdly, I truely believe that this issue (pain, suffering) stops being a big issue if you take God out of the picture. Without God, any morality or meaning you or I derive from this life is transitory at best, and ultimately fades into nothing. You/I exist now, in this very small period of history (and I do believe in evolution btw); what you/I have done in our lives has an impact on those we know, but when we/they die, this all but evaporates. You could then say, but what I do has an impact on my life/others' lives and 'the future of the human race'; fair enough. But what happens when this earth eventally ceases to exist? You might as well not have existed. Nothing that endures after the earth ceases to be will care; you might as well not have existed. You might as well have murdered millions, you might as well have been Hitler.

The universe doesn't care if this little boy got shot or not, it just happened; deal with it. I have heard the argument from evolution that humanity naturally bonds together to ensure better chance of survival. This may have been true at one stage, but is it still true now? There's no less chance that you will survive because this little boy got shot, and if you look at the world, the exploitation and hatred between human beings suggests otherwise. And before you say, it's religion that causes this to happen, I would say that it's not just religion that causes wars: politics, natural resources are exactly the same.

For a better description of what I'm trying to say, read Camus' 'The Outsider'.

I'm not trying to say there is an easy answer from God as to why these things happen. But, the existence of God gives a much deeper framework to try and answer these questions than atheistic humanism, which simply derives meaning from the individual (or perhaps 'humanity' - but not if you're a post-modernist!) which is here today and gone tomorrow.

There is blind faith in everything. But faith exercised through experience. When I drive my car I have faith the brakes will work. But actually this turns out not to be faith, but belief. I watched the mechanic work on my car. I shook his hand and spoke to him. He's being doing his job for years. So my "faith" turns out to be evidence accumulated through experience.

I agree, but you said that faith in God is 'illogical'. This is from your perspective because you haven't 'experienced' God in a way which you can say that he is real. I, on the other hand, have. What you mean by faith in God is 'illogical' is that it is 'illogical' for YOU. You can't say in blanket terms, it's illogical for ALL people. (If I've misunderstood you, I apologise).

Of course we do. But it's then a big leap to the proposition of an eternal, sentient being who's omnipresent, omnipotent, and who cares about every living creature on this tiny speck of dust, here in this known universe.

Again, I agree. But 'big leap' does not equal 'illogical' or even 'impossible'.

I agree, but then I've never said it did. I stated at the very beginning that I'm a de facto atheist. I see no evidence for God, therefore he has no influence on my life and I'm free to behave as if he didn't exist. I also said that I believed it to be arrogant to take the position of a "God-denier" because (as I've previously said) we can't deny the existence of Santa. Although I'll give you that we can have a bloody good guess.

You've answered my above statement, thanks! You're not a 'Richard Dawkins' atheist.

You make my point well. Humans do want more, and sometimes if more doesn't exist, then we make things up to fill the gaps.

I'm glad you acknowledge this. In the debate before you joined, newboy and Man in Black (I think) were trying to argue that a world without God can go just as far to satisfy these desires, and we actually don't need anything to 'fill this gap'. You have said here that the simple fact that we live, die and that's it, ISN'T enough for humanity. Again, I reiterate, this ISN'T a proof for God, but the very fact that you think humans have to 'make stuff up', proves a Godless world doesn't give anything like the meaning that we crave as humans.

I'm afraid it's see my previous answer. I'm not doubting the level of desire we have for something more. I'm claiming that there is no evidence to support the premise that the something more is the omnipotent being, and that he exists.

I agree! But it's another step for you to say, there categorically IS no evidence for God's existence. Billions around the world claim to see/experience God, and I am one of them. There IS no evidence for you at this particular moment in time, but that doesn't mean that there objectively ISN'T any evidence. What if I'm right and you're wrong? Conversely, I have to deal with the fact that you might be right and I'm wrong.

I would love to choose to believe in God. I tried it for 20 years in total but in the end you can't choose to believe in something you can't. But thank you for the points.

Personally, I am saddened by this (not in a derogatory or pitying way!). From my perspective, the faith I have in God is the most incredible source of joy and hope in my life, and it would just increase this joy if others (friends, family, you etc.) experienced this as I do. I'm not saying it's impossible to be happy if you don't believe in God, but having had times when I haven't really believed in God, and comparing them to now, there is simply no comparison. I don't just believe the arguments for God are better than the ones against him, I believe he is real and he loves me and has a purpose for my life.

My compliments sir-nicely expressed. ,and the essential distinction between ëvidence""on the one hand and "proof"on the other is well made.

Someone said somewhere- perhaps you know the source, to the effect that there is '"a God-shaped" hole in people's makeup which we are always trying to fill by one means or another: and if formalized religion does not fill the bill then we will always seek substitutes.

Thank you very much! I'm afraid I don't have the source, but I definitely believe it's true. For the record, I am a Christian who really isn't a big fan of formalized religion. I certainly don't believe the God revealed in Jesus was for 'formalized religion', but a God who is always calling into question the assumptions we have about him, and condemning the arrogance and judgementalism of those who think they have 'found the truth and everyone else must, by definition be wrong and going to hell'.

[Mr Mosquito]

From my perspective, the faith I have in God is the most incredible source of joy and hope in my life, and it would just increase this joy if others (friends, family, you etc.) experienced this as I do. I'm not saying it's impossible to be happy if you don't believe in God, but having had times when I haven't really believed in God, and comparing them to now, there is simply no comparison. I don't just believe the arguments for God are better than the ones against him, I believe he is real and he loves me and has a purpose for my life.

Some of the greatest people that have ever lived have shown themselves to have had an unshakeable belief in God. It's rather sad that some people are so dismissive of the religious experiences, religious beliefs and religious texts from previous generations. Some people may be searching in the wrong way for God: "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." Jeremiah 29:13

[ruraldean]

...but three points: firstly, just because bad things happen (and I agree this is a tragedy, the situation you suggest here), shouldn't take away the 'evidence' for this 'loving God'. The joy that we feel, be it seeing a loved one we haven't seen in ages, having a child born, getting married, celebrating a City goal, can be (note I don't say, 'are') evidence for a loving God.

OK, I'm on another colour, so this is the last time we can realistically do it this way! Re: above point. I don't feel that the experience of joy for anything signifies the existence of God. Joy is a natural emotion. Would you argue that all emotions are God-given? I suppose you would, but I think we'll have to agree to differ on that one.

Secondly (and repeating my points from above), I agree this is very hard to defend from a God of love. I have struggled with this many time, especially with Haiti just having happened. I could offer possible explanations, none of which you would buy, but also none of which I would say fully explain the problem. One quick example: God created the earth, doesn't mean he creates evil: a chair maker makes a chair, and if a break happens in the chair, he/she didn't 'make' the break, but he/she created it with the possibility of the break (I can try and expand on this if you want - although I'm sure you've heard it before).

This is more of a Deist argument. Christians specifically believe in an interventionist God. If God is all-powerful and all-loving then Haiti would have been a logical contradiction. If God caused the earthquake then he's not a God I could worship; if God failed to stop the earthquake then ditto. I've listened to varies high clergy in the media over the last week. When asked "Where was God in the Haiti experience?" the common answer is that there is no explanation for why God allowed it to happen - that's one of life's mysteries, but we do know that through the disaster we have seen God working through the emergency services, Hollywood stars, people large and small giving unprecedented gifts of prayer and money. Well great.

If I had a box of kittens and started randomly stabbing them, then opened my door to invite people to try to save the ones I'd only maimed, then you would say I'm mad. If God devastates a society just to prove how wonderful everyone else may be he remains a loving God? I don't see it.

Thirdly, I truely believe that this issue (pain, suffering) stops being a big issue if you take God out of the picture.

I totally agree. "The Problem of Suffering" is specifically God-based. I don't have mental wrangles about Haiti because it's (seriously) just one of those things. Fortunately I don't have to try to justify God's actions in the way that you as an apologist do.

Without God, any morality or meaning you or I derive from this life is transitory at best, and ultimately fades into nothing. You/I exist now, in this very small period of history (and I do believe in evolution btw); what you/I have done in our lives has an impact on those we know, but when we/they die, this all but evaporates. You could then say, but what I do has an impact on my life/others' lives and 'the future of the human race'; fair enough. But what happens when this earth eventally ceases to exist? You might as well not have existed. Nothing that endures after the earth ceases to be will care; you might as well not have existed. You might as well have murdered millions, you might as well have been Hitler.

I can't argue with any of this, but nor do I think it matters. I strive to do things while alive which I hope will carry on after I'm gone. I've passed on my genes through my children, as I have my manners and philosophy (well, in one case). I won't change the world in the way Hitler did and you're right - the time will come when I am totally forgotten. As a non-participant in the afterlife I won't care. As a participant in LIFE though, I strive to do the best I can while I can.

The universe doesn't care if this little boy got shot or not, it just happened; deal with it. I have heard the argument from evolution that humanity naturally bonds together to ensure better chance of survival. This may have been true at one stage, but is it still true now? There's no less chance that you will survive because this little boy got shot, and if you look at the world, the exploitation and hatred between human beings suggests otherwise. And before you say, it's religion that causes this to happen, I would say that it's not just religion that causes wars: politics, natural resources are exactly the same.

I don't say that religions start wars, only that wars have been started in the name of religion, and never in the name of atheism.

Did God cause the bullet to hit the boy, did he know it was going to happen and failed to stop it, or did he have no knowledge of the situation? This is one of the areas where I have problems because none of these scenarios fits the God of the New Testament, the omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful, loving God.

...but you said that faith in God is 'illogical'. This is from your perspective because you haven't 'experienced' God in a way which you can say that he is real. I, on the other hand, have. What you mean by faith in God is 'illogical' is that it is 'illogical' for YOU. You can't say in blanket terms, it's illogical for ALL people. (If I've misunderstood you, I apologise).

During my journey through the Christian Faith I did indeed feel the "experience of God" you describe. I can remember clearly walking along one dark evening and feeling safe in the knowledge that God was with me. Over a period of time I realised that this was a feeling I could turn on or off at will. I came to recognise the self-delusion in this when I remembered a similar feeling as a child. My father painted illustrations for me which were pinned to the wall next to my bed. I was four. I used to look at one picture of elves and goblins and as I settled down to sleep I used to imagine myself living with them. The warm glow was identical to the feeling of living with God, and was just as manufactured. I could write a book on the subjectivism of the God experience believe me, so I'll leave it there for the sake of other readers.

You make my point well. Humans do want more, and sometimes if more doesn't exist, then we make things up to fill the gaps.

I'm glad you acknowledge this. In the debate before you joined, newboy and Man in Black (I think) were trying to argue that a world without God can go just as far to satisfy these desires, and we actually don't need anything to 'fill this gap'. You have said here that the simple fact that we live, die and that's it, ISN'T enough for humanity. Again, I reiterate, this ISN'T a proof for God, but the very fact that you think humans have to 'make stuff up', proves a Godless world doesn't give anything like the meaning that we crave as humans.

Agreed as before, we differ in that you see God as the solution, and I see the invention of God as the solution.

I'm afraid it's see my previous answer. I'm not doubting the level of desire we have for something more. I'm claiming that there is no evidence to support the premise that the something more is the omnipotent being, and that he exists.

I agree! But it's another step for you to say, there categorically IS no evidence for God's existence. Billions around the world claim to see/experience God, and I am one of them. There IS no evidence for you at this particular moment in time, but that doesn't mean that there objectively ISN'T any evidence. What if I'm right and you're wrong? Conversely, I have to deal with the fact that you might be right and I'm wrong.

OK I'll clarify. I believe there is no objective evidence for God. Any evidence presented to me has been subjective and experiential. But a lot of bad work has been done by people claiming to hear the voice of God, from suicide bombers to snipers on water towers. What (other than your own opinion) makes your experience more genuine than theirs?

I would love to choose to believe in God. I tried it for 20 years in total but in the end you can't choose to believe in something you can't. But thank you for the points.

Personally, I am saddened by this (not in a derogatory or pitying way!). From my perspective, the faith I have in God is the most incredible source of joy and hope in my life, and it would just increase this joy if others (friends, family, you etc.) experienced this as I do. I'm not saying it's impossible to be happy if you don't believe in God, but having had times when I haven't really believed in God, and comparing them to now, there is simply no comparison. I don't just believe the arguments for God are better than the ones against him, I believe he is real and he loves me and has a purpose for my life.

I find it sad too, but I've never found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow either. Remember, it clearly states in the NT that God chooses us, and that faith is a gift from God. Well perhaps I'm one of those he never chose, and to whom he never gave that gift. Is it better I feel abandoned by God, or that I accept that this is a course of belief that I cannot follow?

I'm glad this discussion hasn't deteriorated into the sort of rubbish I've seen elsewhere (full of ad homs etc.) but I have to say the BCFC Fans' Forum is probably the last place I thought I'd have it! God works in mysterious ways eh? (Damn!)

[Mr Mosquito]

An interesting religion article with an hilarious reply in today's Daily Mail online:

Avowed atheist David Miliband sends son to Church of England school

One of the replies to the article states:

I trust that their local council is using the relevant anti-terror laws to monitor their church attendances.. Can't be too careful these days you know....

Says it all about the Zanuliebour pack of hypocrits really....

- Joe C, Wimborne, 24/1/2010 10:29

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245584/Avowed-atheist-David-Miliband-sends-son-C-E-school.html#ixzz0dbyjNRKx

[gater2]

During my journey through the Christian Faith I did indeed feel the "experience of God" you describe. I can remember clearly walking along one dark evening and feeling safe in the knowledge that God was with me. Over a period of time I realised that this was a feeling I could turn on or off at will. I came to recognise the self-delusion in this when I remembered a similar feeling as a child. My father painted illustrations for me which were pinned to the wall next to my bed. I was four. I used to look at one picture of elves and goblins and as I settled down to sleep I used to imagine myself living with them. The warm glow was identical to the feeling of living with God, and was just as manufactured. I could write a book on the subjectivism of the God experience believe me, so I'll leave it there for the sake of other readers.

This is really interesting, and I know what you're talking about, as I have had similar thoughts. I guess what I'd say is that I'm not sure you have to separate the two experiences. I feel joy and comfort from many different things: my family, stories I hear, Bristol City (!). Now these things aren't GOD per se, but I think God works through things like this to give us clues he is there. Could this not be a possibility? You said elsewhere, joy is simply a human emotion; I agree, but this doesn't mean it can't have its origin in God. I'm also not one of those Christians who thinks unless you are a Christian you CAN'T experience the love of God. When a Muslim prays, or experiences God in a deep way, I do feel it is the same God. Where I differ would be that whereas Islam (for example) has captured a part of God, the only FULL manifestation of God is in Jesus, and a better medium through which to experience this is the Christian faith.

Of course experience of God is subjective, the Bible (certainly NT) makes it clear God meets us where we are. Certainly Jesus did when he spoke to the lepars and outcasts of society. I'm not sure whether you need to distinguish too much between 'real God experiences' (prayer, musical worhsip etc.) and experience of God through other mediums.. It says in the OT he chose to speak through an ass to illustrate my point

[ruraldean]

Now these things aren't GOD per se, but I think God works through things like this to give us clues he is there. Could this not be a possibility?

Of course experience of God is subjective, the Bible (certainly NT) makes it clear God meets us where we are. Certainly Jesus did when he spoke to the lepars and outcasts of society. I'm not sure whether you need to distinguish too much between 'real God experiences' (prayer, musical worhsip etc.) and experience of God through other mediums.. It says in the OT he chose to speak through an ass to illustrate my point

My wife says I talk through my ass most of the time too.

In answer to your question of course it's a possibility. Looking at other indications of the existence of God I tend to minimise that possibility, but in the interests of honesty can't fully eliminate it.

For me, the problem of the subjectivity of belief (or faith if you want) lies in the multitude of different interpretations given by those who claim to experience God. I am sure that your interpretations are both benign and (NT) biblical. However, not all are. Dawkins describes the God of the Old Testament as a monster, and I concur, although Christians would emphasise God's justice. The God of the New Testament is a much nicer bloke, although he still chose the mechanism of blood sacrifice to appease himself through the death of his son, when perhaps there were other less painful options. When somebody takes to the streets with an AK47 and targets homosexuals he claims that God told him to do it. When you experience love and compassion you make the same claim. He bases his "Word" on the God of the OT, you the NT. Which is correct and why? That's largely a rhetorical question, but you get my point.

Couple this with the suffering question, one that believers struggle with but we don't, and you may see my position.

[Maesknoll Red]

I'm willing to bet you have something that drives you, gives you a reason to live. Friends, family, BCFC, whatever. That's your 'crutch' as you say.

Money, fun, personal gratification, not worrying what anyone else thinks about me, living for the moment, nothing I'd describe as a' crutch'.

[gater2]

Money, fun, personal gratification, not worrying what anyone else thinks about me, living for the moment, nothing I'd describe as a' crutch'.

But if any of those things suddenly came crashing down, you would see that they are holding you up like a 'crutch'. What if you suddenly lost your job and didn't have any money? What if you suddenly had a breakdown/midlife crisis or whatever? What if a loved one died suddenly? This kind of stuff does happen to people like you and me (and I hope it doesn't for either of us), but it's a myth to think humans live in their own little bubble, irrespective of the people/things around us. They are the things which define us, and if they're taken away we are nothing.

[gater2]

My wife says I talk through my ass most of the time too.

In answer to your question of course it's a possibility. Looking at other indications of the existence of God I tend to minimise that possibility, but in the interests of honesty can't fully eliminate it.

For me, the problem of the subjectivity of belief (or faith if you want) lies in the multitude of different interpretations given by those who claim to experience God. I am sure that your interpretations are both benign and (NT) biblical. However, not all are. Dawkins describes the God of the Old Testament as a monster, and I concur, although Christians would emphasise God's justice. The God of the New Testament is a much nicer bloke, although he still chose the mechanism of blood sacrifice to appease himself through the death of his son, when perhaps there were other less painful options. When somebody takes to the streets with an AK47 and targets homosexuals he claims that God told him to do it. When you experience love and compassion you make the same claim. He bases his "Word" on the God of the OT, you the NT. Which is correct and why? That's largely a rhetorical question, but you get my point.

Couple this with the suffering question, one that believers struggle with but we don't, and you may see my position.

My fiancee also thinks I talk out my ass at times too! There's an objective thing we both experience

I guess this is something else we'll have to agree to disagree on. Whereas I agree there is an element of subjectivity, I think this has to be balanced out by objectivity as well. You mention the difference in experience of God: I agree to an extent. I've done quite a lot of study of the Church, and I know that if you walk into a high anglican church, an eastern orthodox church, a conservative evangelical church, it will feel quite different. BUT, the thing that amazes me, is that I CAN see common trends and a unity which holds them together at the same time.

From what you are suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong), it almost seems as if it is impossible for two people to experience God (or anything for that matter) in the same way - a post-modern approach. You will disagree with me, but from my studies and experience of lots of different churches, I think it is more the peripheral things which cause splits, and the core remains relatively the same. For example I have read quite a bit of the early Church Fathers, and while a lot of the time I'm thinking, what is he going on about here?!, at other times, what they write will resonate SO deeply with me. I do GET what they are saying, and I KNOW they must have experienced the same God as me: they couldn't have written this, having grown up nearly 2000 years before me, and understood how I feel so deeply. This must be an objective experience of God.

If you look at the idea of the Trinity, I think this illustrates what I'm trying to say. God is not a single entity (like an Islamic or even Jewish God); and he is not more than one (polytheism). He is both one and three at exactly the same time, paradoxically. This trinitiarian view of God (as consequently society, the church, whatever) suggests you can have diversity (subjectivity), but hold that diversity in unity (objectivity). Of course there is never a perfect balance between these two, but the Church should always be aiming for it. The advantage of this is you can celebrate diversity as a good thing (unlike people who just want people to believe exactly what they believe), while still holding everything together under one banner, which provides the unity postmodernism can never hope to achieve.

I admit your penultimate sentence provides a very difficult question to answer for the 'objective' side of my argument, but I feel it has to be made. If there really is no way of knowing who's right (or who's more right), then you simply have to say words have no meaning. I could say, 'the cat sat on the mat', and if you wanted you could interpret it as 'the dog stood up on the grass' (crude, but you see my point). People believe what they believe too much, and we argue and debate with eachother too much for me to believe truth really is relative.

[ruraldean]

But if any of those things suddenly came crashing down, you would see that they are holding you up like a 'crutch'. What if you suddenly lost your job and didn't have any money? What if you suddenly had a breakdown/midlife crisis or whatever? What if a loved one died suddenly? This kind of stuff does happen to people like you and me (and I hope it doesn't for either of us), but it's a myth to think humans live in their own little bubble, irrespective of the people/things around us. They are the things which define us, and if they're taken away we are nothing.

I know this isn't directed at me, but if I can be indulged I'd like to raise a point as what you said struck me immediately.

In November my mother died unexpectedly. She was buried and I can say I miss her. But I don't worry about her missing me, or looking over me, or wondering how/where she is. When you have no belief in the afterlife it lets you off the hook somewhat. Also I would hate to think that I defined myself by my money (or lack of it), or possessions, or job, or that anyone else did. We atheists are actually pretty tough people, brought about by an understanding that we determine our own paths to a certain extent.

To be perfectly honest, the day that I fully acknowledged my lack of faith was the day I took two lungs full of air and breathed freely for the first time in years. I felt free of the constraints of the rules that Christianity brings. This isn't to say I popped down to the nearest swingers club, or I mugged an old lady, but just that I felt like me for the first time in ages.

[Mr Mosquito]

Interestingly, modern physics has shown us - over the last century - that the atoms which constitute our bodies are largely (99.9999999999999%) composed of empty space. On the bodily, physical level, we are almost no more than a play of light, more akin to "dreamlike nothings" than "solid somethings." In real atomic terms we thus hardly exist and some of our fellow "dreamlike nothings" then argue that God doesn't exist ???!!!! http://www.otib.co.uk/uploads/emoticons/default_innocent06.gif' alt=':innocent06:'> Perhaps this new found scientific understanding of us being more like apiritions could better help us be less dismissive of the multitude of biblical references to soul and spirit. Pick up and read your Bibles folks.

[gater2]

I know this isn't directed at me, but if I can be indulged I'd like to raise a point as what you said struck me immediately.

In November my mother died unexpectedly. She was buried and I can say I miss her. But I don't worry about her missing me, or looking over me, or wondering how/where she is. When you have no belief in the afterlife it lets you off the hook somewhat. Also I would hate to think that I defined myself by my money (or lack of it), or possessions, or job, or that anyone else did. We atheists are actually pretty tough people, brought about by an understanding that we determine our own paths to a certain extent.

To be perfectly honest, the day that I fully acknowledged my lack of faith was the day I took two lungs full of air and breathed freely for the first time in years. I felt free of the constraints of the rules that Christianity brings. This isn't to say I popped down to the nearest swingers club, or I mugged an old lady, but just that I felt like me for the first time in ages.

I am very sorry to hear about your mother, and I apologise if what I said caused any offence to you. My point was simply that people need something to live for, otherwise you're not really living. What Maesknoll Red suggested was that we can just live without any regard to those around us, as we define our happiness by simply who we are, regardless of what anyone else thinks. I don't think life is that simple.

I undertand what you are saying, and I have heard it many times before. All I can say is that you knew/know a Christianity/God very different to the one I know, which, far from constraining me in rules and law, I believe has truely set me free. A Christianity dictated by rules and law is a Christianity of the hypocrites and the Pharisees (as it were). Religion restricts, but the life or the way (whatever you want to call it) Jesus spoke of is so different.

[ruraldean]

Interestingly, modern physics has shown us - over the last century - that the atoms which constitute our bodies are largely (99.9999999999999%) composed of empty space. On the bodily, physical level, we are almost no more than a play of light, more akin to "dreamlike nothings" than "solid somethings." In real atomic terms we thus hardly exist and some of our fellow "dreamlike nothings" then argue that God doesn't exist ???!!!! http://www.otib.co.uk/uploads/emoticons/default_innocent06.gif' alt=':innocent06:'> Perhaps this new found scientific understanding of us being more like apiritions could better help us be less dismissive of the multitude of biblical references to soul and spirit. Pick up and read your Bibles folks.

I think to describe us as "more like apparitions" is missing the point. It doesn't matter what constitutes atoms as all matter is constructed this way. I'm no more apparition-like than a block of concrete. If you've ever banged your shins on a coffee table with the lights out you'll soon lose all conception of a "play of light". Describing us all as "dreamlike nothings" is just another case of religion reducing Man's status, something it needs to do to bolster the image of God. As I'm the only non-believer who's posted anything but a response here in a while I'll assume your comments are directed primarily at me. Nowhere have I been "dismissive" regarding references to spirit and soul, neither of which rely on the existence of God necessarily. And as for picking up my Bible and reading it, it happens I've read the Bible from cover to cover over half a dozen times, including all the boring bits (of which there are many).

I'm not necessarily dismissive of the concept of a single entity being the catalyst for all creation (which, as I've previously stated is a Deist view), but I remain dismissive of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God, because (as I've also said) if he exists then he's not a God I'd worship as long as he allows pain and suffering to occur with no intervention. In fact, many Christians would agree he causes suffering to happen, what with him being omnipotent and all that.

So rather than waving three question marks, four exclamation marks and an angelic smiley about, perhaps you'd like to join in this bit and answer a few questions:

1. When you read about wasps laying eggs in living beings so that the hatching larvae can eat their way out while the animal lives, do you see this as the creation of your loving God?
2. What, in the workings of the food chain, do you see as evidence of a benevolent God?
3. When six million of God's chosen people die in a mass genocide, do you feel that God could or should have protected them? (By the way, the answer "we cannot know the mind of God" is a massive cop-out)
4. When I argue against the existence of a loving, caring, interventionist God, am I using the logic He gave me? Or was there a certain irony to Jesus referring to his people as "Sheep"?

Just a heads up here: I have to leave the computer within the next 30 minutes so probably won't respond tonight unless you're quick. But, as Arnie said - I'll be back.

[ruraldean]

I am very sorry to hear about your mother, and I apologise if what I said caused any offence to you. My point was simply that people need something to live for, otherwise you're not really living. What Maesknoll Red suggested was that we can just live without any regard to those around us, as we define our happiness by simply who we are, regardless of what anyone else thinks. I don't think life is that simple.

Firstly, absolutely no offence taken, and I too am sorry if I gave that impression. Secondly, I would never agree that we should live life without regard for those around us. I've never behaved as if that were the case, but I don't need God to give me manners or a sense of purpose.

I undertand what you are saying, and I have heard it many times before. All I can say is that you knew/know a Christianity/God very different to the one I know, which, far from constraining me in rules and law, I believe has truely set me free. A Christianity dictated by rules and law is a Christianity of the hypocrites and the Pharisees (as it were). Religion restricts, but the life or the way (whatever you want to call it) Jesus spoke of is so different.

Once you've turned your back on your mother and brothers, picked up your own cross, relinquished your riches, turned the other cheek, become a servant, sold your ass, sworn to love God above all else... yup, you have a new kind of freedom alright.

(Genuine apologies for sarcasm, but it was too tempting to resist.)

[Mr Mosquito]

I think to describe us as "more like apparitions" is missing the point. It doesn't matter what constitutes atoms as all matter is constructed this way. I'm no more apparition-like than a block of concrete. If you've ever banged your shins on a coffee table with the lights out you'll soon lose all conception of a "play of light". Describing us all as "dreamlike nothings" is just another case of religion reducing Man's status, something it needs to do to bolster the image of God. As I'm the only non-believer who's posted anything but a response here in a while I'll assume your comments are directed primarily at me. Nowhere have I been "dismissive" regarding references to spirit and soul, neither of which rely on the existence of God necessarily. And as for picking up my Bible and reading it, it happens I've read the Bible from cover to cover over half a dozen times, including all the boring bits (of which there are many).

I'm not necessarily dismissive of the concept of a single entity being the catalyst for all creation (which, as I've previously stated is a Deist view), but I remain dismissive of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God, because (as I've also said) if he exists then he's not a God I'd worship as long as he allows pain and suffering to occur with no intervention. In fact, many Christians would agree he causes suffering to happen, what with him being omnipotent and all that.

So rather than waving three question marks, four exclamation marks and an angelic smiley about, perhaps you'd like to join in this bit and answer a few questions:

1. When you read about wasps laying eggs in living beings so that the hatching larvae can eat their way out while the animal lives, do you see this as the creation of your loving God?
2. What, in the workings of the food chain, do you see as evidence of a benevolent God?
3. When six million of God's chosen people die in a mass genocide, do you feel that God could or should have protected them? (By the way, the answer "we cannot know the mind of God" is a massive cop-out)
4. When I argue against the existence of a loving, caring, interventionist God, am I using the logic He gave me? Or was there a certain irony to Jesus referring to his people as "Sheep"?

Just a heads up here: I have to leave the computer within the next 30 minutes so probably won't respond tonight unless you're quick. But, as Arnie said - I'll be back.

In 'Ye Olde Testament' God is often written of as being a very angry and vengeful God - nowhere have I written that God is 'benevolent'. We really are like ghost like apparitions in the greater context of the Universe. Matter is constructed in a far denser way in the bulk of the known universe where most matter is present - all the matter from which your body is made would be compressed into a pin head in a star for instance. You've read the Bible from cover to cover but there are very real clues that the sum of the Bible's teachings are far greater than its parts. Think about its many references to 'soul' and 'spirit' in the context of physics - the people that wrote the Bible wouldn't have had any grasp of sub atomic physics to my knowledge.

[redcityman]

I have just spent the last two hours reading through this debate, I was brought up CofE, and at an early age this went against every logical thought I had and every feeling I felt, an awful lot of what we read went against what I experienced as a child and as an adult.

Imagine this, being born a twin and being denied the chance to know a sibling of closer emotional and bodily ties than any other sibling could possibly be, 6 week old when taken away ( to be told later in life that they were taken so " God " could give them a better life in heaven, now imagine, asking why was I left behind to suffer major surgery, pain and frustration. throughout my Childhood.

Why was I left behind to suffer? ( the usual "god works in mysterious ways" was all I ever got, in other word I havent a dam clue.

Was this " God" having a laugh! Of course he wasn't, it was nature, through evilution man could alter the path of nature in my case, but not in my sibling.

Believe me it gets worse in later life, so much so I can't talk about it as I have someone who if they knew it could potentially ruin their's and my life ( by the way it's nothing unatural or perverse), but hey life goes on, and believe it or not I have had a good life, a loving family and some great friends, and I don't allow myself to get down, I am grateful for what nature as afforded me, this is what I believe in, Nature.

Evolution of nature is the reason I'm here, and mans ability to learn, not some omnipresent god, I'm not affraid of death, it holds no fear for me, at last I'll get some decent sleep , ( not that I'm ready to go yet, you get used to the pain and anyway life is what you make it.) seriously you want to try living in constant pain, living isn't about being remembered, it's about giving your children a better life and guiding them towards a fulfilling and happy life, something my parents strived to give me.

I don't expect or ask for pity, like the majority of people in my posiistion (and in most cases a lot worse than i have suffered) we just want to be treated like any other human being, unfortunately the church for many years didn't see us as any other human being, some would have said we were cursed by the devil, I don't believe in that either, evil comes of man.

The difference with aethist is we don't try to impose our beliefs on to others, unlike as demonstarted by some in this thread, I may not be university educated, but i do understand my own mind and don't need someone to tell me i'm too stupid to understand just because I choose not to believe in a God, if you need something to allay your fears that things will be better, good for you, but it's not for me.

[ruraldean]

In 'Ye Olde Testament' God is often written of as being a very angry and vengeful God - nowhere have I written that God is 'benevolent'.

If you're saying he isn't then we're on the same page at last. On the other hand it marks you as an odd Christian. I'm pleased also that you acknowledge that the OT God is portrayed differently to the NT God - the same God we are told is unchanging and eternal.

We really are like ghost like apparitions in the greater context of the Universe. Matter is constructed in a far denser way in the bulk of the known universe where most matter is present - all the matter from which your body is made would be compressed into a pin head in a star for instance.

I think I see where your going with this, but it's in entirely the wrong direction. Try this - Matter comprises atoms and atoms largely comprise space. God on the other hand is pure spirit. So I am more substantial than God, albeit by a tiny bit. That's just one of the bizarre directions we can take this if you want, so lets forget "O" Level Physics and examine the objective evidence for the God of the NT (or even his mate the God of the OT, as they're clearly different).

You've read the Bible from cover to cover but there are very real clues that the sum of the Bible's teachings are far greater than its parts. Think about its many references to 'soul' and 'spirit' in the context of physics - the people that wrote the Bible wouldn't have had any grasp of sub atomic physics to my knowledge.

Nor have they demonstrated any.

[Maesknoll Red]

But if any of those things suddenly came crashing down, you would see that they are holding you up like a 'crutch'. What if you suddenly lost your job and didn't have any money? What if you suddenly had a breakdown/midlife crisis or whatever? What if a loved one died suddenly? This kind of stuff does happen to people like you and me (and I hope it doesn't for either of us), but it's a myth to think humans live in their own little bubble, irrespective of the people/things around us. They are the things which define us, and if they're taken away we are nothing.

I'd argue against that, when one door closes, another opens. So if I lost my job, I'd get another one. My Father died suddenly over Xmas, very sad, but my concern is for my Mother, not myself. I don't live in a 'bubble', but I do pretty much everything I do to suit myself - after all your only here once, so you have to make the most of it. This doesn't mean that I don't have a humanitarian side, if a neighbour knocks the door asking for help or assistance with a problem, I'm happy to oblige.

[Mr Mosquito]

ruraldean, the Universe does not just exist as matter. The Universe exists as energy as well. With regard to most places in the known Universe where matter exists, there is often no space between atoms as the atoms are compressed so tight they exist as a superheated plasma - e.g. in a star. People should not be so dismissive of religious teachings and events depicted in the Bible as God is often portrayed as a light or energy (Holy Spirit) in the Bible and to me this makes sense.

God can "stir up" the spirit of individuals so that they carry out some undertaking or purpose of his (1 Chronicles 5:26; Ezra 1:1, 5; Jeremiah 51:1). God can intervene in the mental and emotional aspects of a human psyche to accomplish his will. Saul was able both to prophecy and lead Israel to victory through the Spirit from God (1 Samuel 10:6, 10; 11:6) and to be cast into a state of fear and mental confusion by "an evil spirit" from him (1 Samuel 16:14-16; 18:10; 19:9).

Source: http://www.wcg.org/lit/spiritual/soulspirit.htm

[ruraldean]

ruraldean, the Universe does not just exist as matter. The Universe exists as energy as well. With regard to most places in the known Universe where matter exists, there is often no space between atoms as the atoms are compressed so tight they exist as a superheated plasma - e.g. in a star. People should not be so dismissive of religious teachings and events depicted in the Bible as God is often portrayed as a light or energy (Holy Spirit) in the Bible and to me this makes sense.

God can "stir up" the spirit of individuals so that they carry out some undertaking or purpose of his (1 Chronicles 5:26; Ezra 1:1, 5; Jeremiah 51:1). God can intervene in the mental and emotional aspects of a human psyche to accomplish his will. Saul was able both to prophecy and lead Israel to victory through the Spirit from God (1 Samuel 10:6, 10; 11:6) and to be cast into a state of fear and mental confusion by "an evil spirit" from him (1 Samuel 16:14-16; 18:10; 19:9).

Source: http://www.wcg.org/l.../soulspirit.htm

We're back to non-relevant "O" Level Physics again. The word "Spirit" commonly translates the Greek New Testament word pneuma (Greek: πνεύμα), which means "Breath". That is the Hebrew understanding of spirit, not anything to do with energy or light.

Quoting the Bible to somebody who clearly doesn't believe the Bible to be the inspired work of God is a non-intellectual form of argument and is unlikely to change opinions.

[Mr Mosquito]

We're back to non-relevant "O" Level Physics again. The word "Spirit" commonly translates the Greek New Testament word pneuma (Greek: πνεύμα), which means "Breath". That is the Hebrew understanding of spirit, not anything to do with energy or light.

Quoting the Bible to somebody who clearly doesn't believe the Bible to be the inspired work of God is a non-intellectual form of argument and is unlikely to change opinions.

To me the Bible is an interpretation of events written in the language of the day - those days being thousands of years ago with regard to ye olde testament. Do you really think that one of the authors of ye olde testament - who wouldn't have even had an 'O' level physics qualification - would be able to describe the monitor and computer you're using in today's scientific language? Anyway, where have I stated that the Bible is an inspired work of God? I'm not interested in forcing Bible stories and/or teachings on anyone I'm just giving an opinion and my opinion is that the Bible often holds morally and ethically true today as it did a 1,000 years ago and more.

One of the problems with the Christian religion in this country is that it's often been hijacked by the upper classes (Toffs) for their own gain. The Church of England leadership used to have people whipped, mocked and pilloried for expressing an opinion contrary to that of the ruling classes. This is one of the reasons that the Church of England was abolished along with the House of Lords and Monarchy in 1649. I'm Church of England - through birth not choice - and I think Toff lawyers should be stopped from using the Bible in a court room as all they're doing is trying to legitimize their often corrupt operations of persecuting people for what are often very petty offences.

[ruraldean]

To me the Bible is an interpretation of events written in the language of the day - those days being thousands of years ago with regard to ye olde testament. Do you really think that one of the authors of ye olde testament - who wouldn't have even had an 'O' level physics qualification - would be able to describe the monitor and computer you're using in today's scientific language?

No, no more than I think you can define "spirit" in today's scientific language. To quote you: "People should not be so dismissive of religious teachings and events depicted in the Bible as God is often portrayed as a light or energy (Holy Spirit) in the Bible and to me this makes sense". All I'm saying is that "spirit" comes from "Breath", not "Energy" or "Light".

Anyway, where have I stated that the Bible is an inspired work of God? I'm not interested in forcing Bible stories and/or teachings on anyone I'm just giving an opinion and my opinion is that the Bible often holds morally and ethically true today as it did a 1,000 years ago and more.

Again, you differ from the Christian norm, which expressly states that the Bible IS the inspired word of God. If not, then I have even less reason to take it seriously. If not inspired by God, or at least the concept of God, then what's it all about? As to it's moral value I'd ask you to have another stab at the OT. Child killing, rape, genocide - all God instructed. The NT is rather more about women learning to keep their mouths shut and homosexuals being singled out. The Biblical God doesn't like them.

One of the problems with the Christian religion in this country is that it's often been hijacked by the upper classes (Toffs) for their own gain. The Church of England leadership used to have people whipped, mocked and pilloried for expressing an opinion contrary to that of the ruling classes. This is one of the reasons that the Church of England was abolished along with the House of Lords and Monarchy in 1649.

The Church wasn't abolished, it was disestablished, meaning it failed to receive State recognition and support. Under the Protectorate of the Commonwealth of England from 1649 to 1660, Anglicanism was disestablished, presbyterian ecclesiology was introduced as an adjunct to the episcopal system, the Articles were replaced with the Westminster Confession, and the Book of Common Prayer was replaced by the Directory of Public Worship. Despite this, about one quarter of English clergy refused to conform. In 1660 it all went back to normal.

I'm Church of England - through birth not choice - and I think Toff lawyers should be stopped from using the Bible in a court room as all they're doing is trying to legitimize their often corrupt operations of persecuting people for what are often very petty offences.

?????????

[Mr Mosquito]

ruraldean, what's the Christian norm? Ye Olde Testament is from Jewish scripture and pre dates Christianity by thousands of years. The New Testament also contains explicitly explained executions and differs little from the levels of human depravity explained in Ye Olde Testament. Human behaviour hasn't differed in thousands of years. To me the Bible gives pretty good examples of how to live your life safely without pissing off others and of how to recognize and avoid the many idiots in Government positions and false prophets etc. To me that's Holy and righteous scripture and I Praise the Lord for it.

"In 1660 it all went back to normal." - ahem, 'normal' meaning the Toff led state religion of England?

You've peppered the end of your reply with...."??????" Well, to me the best leader we've ever had in England was actually the poorest man in the House of Commons by some distance; he wore a coarse suit, and plain linen shirt, its collar spotted with blood. Poor in dress but rich in speech, he was a man with a fearless and tactless tongue who denounced the tyranny of the bishops, and the pervasive idolatry of the established Church. He served on eighteen high-profile committees, especially those concerned with investigating religious innovation and abuse of ecclesiastical power. Now who would that Wurzel like God fearing Gentleman have been?

[ruraldean]

ruraldean, what's the Christian norm? Ye Olde Testament is from Jewish scripture and pre dates Christianity by thousands of years. I know. The New Testament also contains explicitly explained executions and differs little from the levels of human depravity explained in Ye Olde Testament. Depravity authorised and driven by God - not sure where it is in the NT though. Human behaviour hasn't differed in thousands of years. To me the Bible gives pretty good examples of how to live your life safely without pissing off others and of how to recognize and avoid the many idiots in Government positions and false prophets etc. To me that's Holy and righteous scripture and I Praise the Lord for it. I'm not sure the Bible should be used as a tool to further whatever your political agenda is. Surely the Bible is a collection of works which interpret man's view of his relationship with God. It's not Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.

"In 1660 it all went back to normal." - ahem, 'normal' meaning the Toff led state religion of England?

I'm guessing the 39 Articles, the Westminster Confession or the Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church, each of which differs in some respect, but not in their recognition of the Bible as the Holy Word of God.

You've peppered the end of your reply with...."??????" Well, to me the best leader we've ever had in England was actually the poorest man in the House of Commons by some distance; he wore a coarse suit, and plain linen shirt, its collar spotted with blood. Poor in dress but rich in speech, he was a man with a fearless and tactless tongue who denounced the tyranny of the bishops, and the pervasive idolatry of the established Church. He served on eighteen high-profile committees, especially those concerned with investigating religious innovation and abuse of ecclesiastical power. Now who would that Wurzel like God fearing Gentleman have been?

Dunno - Michael Foot? He was pretty left wing wasn't he?

(That was a joke by the way - I've spotted your avatar).

None of this debate, which has been reasonably conducted so far, is about politics. It's about God. Blimey, I'm an atheist and I'm trying to keep it on track. For the record I will not indulge your political diversions. You want to debate the subject of the thread then I'm happy to join in.

[Mr Mosquito]

ruraldean, to me God is very real in whatever way shape or form. I'm just amazed that there are so many like you with religious education/position that don't believe.

The most brilliant mind I can think of - that of Albert Einstein - beleived in God. Shortly after his 50th birthday, Einstein gave an interview during which someone asked him, "Do you believe in God?" Einstein responded, "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying laws but only dimly understand these laws."

[ruraldean]

OK, now why didn't you say so before. Now I know Einstein MAY have been a believer I can change my whole philosophical outlook.

I'm glad I've amazed you.