tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8926926654849093847..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Anencepahlic Babies and the Problem of EvilUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87566409605509727962007-08-10T12:24:00.000-04:002007-08-10T12:24:00.000-04:00likewiselikewiseRichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47095897642528238372007-08-10T09:48:00.000-04:002007-08-10T09:48:00.000-04:00Hi Richdurrant,I have to say that it is a pleasure...Hi Richdurrant,<BR/>I have to say that it is a pleasure to correspond with you. :-)<BR/>thanks for your participation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24255777599353403022007-08-10T08:50:00.000-04:002007-08-10T08:50:00.000-04:00Yes it would cover non-Christians. Primarily becau...Yes it would cover non-Christians. Primarily because I don't believe only Christians will be saved. If it turns someone to believe in God and change their lives for the better, than regardless of the denomination, I wouldn't consider that suffering needless.<BR/>I'm always thinking about certain posts even if I don't comment on them though;)Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89795247245688751362007-08-10T06:21:00.000-04:002007-08-10T06:21:00.000-04:00Hi Richdurrant,I didn't think anyone was still wor...Hi Richdurrant,<BR/>I didn't think anyone was still working on this. <BR/>Does your solution cover non-christians as well? <BR/><BR/>Heres one to think about, by your definition is there any needless suffering going on in Iraq, and if it is only witnessed by Muslims, and it reinforces their belief or causes some to convert to islam, would that be considered greater good?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34521127829511957312007-08-10T05:57:00.000-04:002007-08-10T05:57:00.000-04:00In thinking about the post, the greater good part,...In thinking about the post, the greater good part, I had a thought. Since we are talking about an internal critique of Christianity, for God it is his purpose to save us. So if suffering could serve this greater good by saving even one person, then it wouldn't necessarily by needless. That to me doesn't minimize the suffering of the person, or those affected by it. Remembering that I have a severely disabled daughter, so I believe I can have some empathy for these folks, I would say that if she were able to help someone's salvation, then all her, and our, suffering would not be needless. That doesn't mean it would lessen the suffering, or make it good, but that it served the "greater good" purpose and therefore isn't needless. Your bringing this down to one case and I am responding to this one case. So this isn't going to answer for all suffering.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60704953590861223342007-08-09T00:24:00.000-04:002007-08-09T00:24:00.000-04:00lowendaction,I know I said I'd try to wrap things ...lowendaction,<BR/><BR/>I know I said I'd try to wrap things up, but I just couldn't resist...<BR/><BR/><I>So when I look at that grey area where science falls short, and the supernatural picks up, I have to start rationalizing.</I><BR/><BR/>Where science falls short, we need not resort to the supernatural. Science has a proven track record when it comes to answering the "how" questions. Just because it does not currently explain something does not mean a supernatural explanation is required. Ancient people used to invoke supernatural explanations for thunder and lightning, because their science was unable to explain such phenomenon. That reasoning was unsound then, and it's just as unsound now.<BR/><BR/>As for the "why" questions, those are lie outside science's domain. They fall instead in philosophy's domain. But the supernatural is in no way necessary for philosophical work.<BR/><BR/><I>And when I'm presented with the options of skeptically striving my way towards a known dead end</I><BR/><BR/>How is science a known dead-end, and in regards to what?<BR/><BR/><I>or striving towards the Godly existance, with the off chance that there is something beyond the end...</I><BR/><BR/>This sounds like Pascal's Wager. But the choice is not simply that of believing in God or not believing in God. There are an infinity of possible supernatural entities to choose from. An infinite subset of these will punish disbelief with eternal torment. So your odds of choosing the right one is 1/infinity, or effectively zero, exactly the same as the atheist who chooses none at all!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54431537092417814922007-08-08T18:20:00.000-04:002007-08-08T18:20:00.000-04:00btsai,I too wish to wrap this up, and appreciate y...btsai,<BR/><BR/>I too wish to wrap this up, and appreciate your insightful, as do I appreciate lee's patients with us!<BR/><BR/>I think one major difference between you and I, is you seem to have a need for cold hard tangleble facts that would preferable be laid under your microscope. Whereas I tend to pan back and look at the big picture. Like the design of nature, purpose of life, life after death and such (i'm not suggesting that you don't ponder the same issues, i just get the feeling that you would prefer more tangible data). <BR/><BR/>So when I look at that grey area where science falls short, and the supernatural picks up, I have to start rationalizing. And when I'm presented with the options of skeptically striving my way towards a known dead end, or striving towards the Godly existance, with the off chance that there is something beyond the end...<BR/><BR/><BR/>And that's what makes sense to me. Strangly enough, I'm an INTJ, so I wonder how that plays into david ellis's personality theory...<BR/><BR/>I'm sure we'll pick this up on another post.<BR/><BR/>thankslowendactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509676520378562142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85393428562093476072007-08-08T16:16:00.000-04:002007-08-08T16:16:00.000-04:00lowendaction,I think we've taken the comments sect...lowendaction,<BR/><BR/>I think we've taken the comments section on a long tangent away from the original subject, so I'll try to wrap things up a bit, and try to keep it brief while I'm at it.<BR/><BR/>I did not mean for you to lay out your entire belief system here. But the place *is* called "Debunking Christianity". You should be prepared to justify your acceptance of Christianity's claims as the building blocks for your worldview.<BR/><BR/>Saying "I believe it because it seems true and real to me" doesn't suffice. Because that can be used to justify just about *any* worldview. To distinguish between real and false worldviews, we need evidence, and it's simple lack of evidence that steers skeptics away from theism.<BR/><BR/><I>What is sufficient for you? You obviously have a plethora of answers for what dose not suffice. So what DOES make it all worth while for you? Just curious.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what the question is. Are you asking what evidence I would consider sufficient for proving Christianity, or what I think the purpose of my existence is? My comment on 11:55 AM, August 08, 2007 in this thread touches a bit on both:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/christians-are-fearful-of-doubting.html" REL="nofollow">LINK</A>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87111066084446123452007-08-08T14:53:00.000-04:002007-08-08T14:53:00.000-04:00btsai,My intent in responding to you, was not to c...btsai,<BR/><BR/>My intent in responding to you, was not to convert or even convince you of the brilliant infallibility of my decisions/beliefs (NOT). They are just that, mine.<BR/><BR/>I take them as a whole, and of course these are summarized highlights. I have no interest in laying out my entire belief system or testimony on this blog.<BR/><BR/>As far as I'm concerned, as long as I can look myself in the mirror, and honestly say that what I believe is true and real to me, and without the aid of any exterior force but of my own free will I choose to follow, then I'm good with that.<BR/><BR/>I had no intentions of implying that a non-Christian life is one with out meaning or purpose. I appologize if it read like that! This is a personal manifesto, and I alone must determin what is satisfactory to my world view.<BR/><BR/>For me, the God of the Christian bible is sufficient for me.<BR/><BR/>What is sufficient for you? You obviously have a plethora of answers for what dose not suffice. So what DOES make it all worth while for you? Just curious.<BR/><BR/>thanxlowendactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509676520378562142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66985176262014551842007-08-08T13:43:00.000-04:002007-08-08T13:43:00.000-04:00lowendaction,I'd like to think, that not only when...lowendaction,<BR/><BR/><I>I'd like to think, that not only when I made my initial decision to follow the Judeo/Christian God, but on a contiunual basis along my journey, I weigh my faith against all available evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>An admirable stance. I would just like to point out that if you do indeed test Christiantiy's claims against evidence, you are doing exactly what skeptics do. No more, no less. We just happen to arrive at different conclusions. But this does not make one of us more arrogant, nor the other more humble.<BR/><BR/><I>That God may have created/designed the perfection that is our natural world.</I><BR/><BR/>The same could be said about the deity/deities of any other religion. And frankly, the natural world is by no means perfect. The case for a designer/creator is lacking.<BR/><BR/><I>The individual relational connection that this same God desires with me, which is not dependant on other people, idols, or laws/regulations.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, not exclusive to Christianity. Many other religions also claim that a personal relationship exists between their deity/deities and the worshipper. For example, the following is claimed by Hinduism:<BR/><BR/><B>Yes, little by little, slowly, very slowly, a relationship evolves, a very personal, loving relationship, between the devotee and the elephant-faced God. Psychic protection is granted, physical protection, mental and emotional protection are all granted as boons by Him. He will not allow His devotees to use their free, instinctive willfulness to make more kukarma by getting into difficulties. Rather, He will guide them carefully, protecting them every moment along the way so that their natural birth karmas may be worked through and sukarma created by right living. This is His main concern. Lord Ganesha loves and cares for His devotees. Once the devotee is connected to Him through the awakening of the muladhara chakra, loneliness is never experienced.</B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1995/9/1995-9-09.shtml" REL="nofollow">Hindu Deity of Dharma</A><BR/><BR/><I>Living via the example of Christ is nothing short of fulfilling and meaningful, as well as a positive influence on everyone around me (this is not a reference to an increase in such temporary things as: more money, friends, happyness..., nore does this exclude persecution or suffering).</I><BR/><BR/>Are you saying that non-Christians cannot lead lives as fulfilling, meaningful, benevolent as those of Christians? This is an incredibly tall claim to try to make. All evidence points to the contrary, that people manage to have quality lives regardless of whether they are Christians.<BR/><BR/>None of these suffice as reasons to pick Christianity over other faiths, or faith over atheism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30109637941984390242007-08-08T12:58:00.000-04:002007-08-08T12:58:00.000-04:00btsai,I'd like to think, that not only when I made...btsai,<BR/><BR/>I'd like to think, that not only when I made my initial decision to follow the Judeo/Christian God, but on a contiunual basis along my journey, I weigh my faith against all available evidence.<BR/><BR/>My short answer for choosing Christianity vs "the others":<BR/><BR/>- That God may have created/designed the perfection that is our natural world.<BR/>- The individual relational connection that this same God desires with me, which is not dependant on other people, idols, or laws/regulations.<BR/>- Living via the example of Christ is nothing short of fulfilling and meaningful, as well as a positive influence on everyone around me (this is not a reference to an increase in such temporary things as: more money, friends, happyness..., nore does this exclude persecution or suffering).lowendactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509676520378562142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30212957213055473202007-08-08T12:25:00.000-04:002007-08-08T12:25:00.000-04:00lowendaction,My point was simply one of authority....lowendaction,<BR/><BR/><I>My point was simply one of authority. Whereas I have chosen to to validate God, and therefore put Him in a place of authority over me. You have not. By your very statement that God is created/claimed via humans, He is--at best--on the same level as you, should you even accept that He exists.</I><BR/><BR/>As David B. Ellis pointed out, *all* the claims we have about God were written by people. Sure, they claim to have been divinely inspired, but so do the authors from a lot of other religions. How do we evaluate their conflicting claims? By evidence.<BR/><BR/>What you seem to be saying is that you've decided to accept God on faith, and then process evidence accordingly. So the question is, why have you decided to accept one set of supernatural claims without first weighing them against evidence, when there are so many different sets to choose from? Why this one?<BR/><BR/>If God gets validated by evidence, I would have no issue accepting his existence. And if the evidence validates his superiority over us, I would have no issue accepting that either.<BR/><BR/><I>Based on these facts (and I think I'm pretty safe there), our analyses/understanding of Him will forever have different results.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, of course. People starting from different premises will always reach different conclusions. The point of this website, as I see it, is to challenge the validity of accepting Christianity's claims as the premises of one's worldview.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64853203753669830242007-08-08T12:13:00.000-04:002007-08-08T12:13:00.000-04:00oh, how duplicitous! to reason to cognitive disso...oh, how duplicitous! to reason to cognitive dissonance on a construct! some of you must feel that the pursuit of 'truth' is what your philosophy is about. where's the 'truth' in arguing from a construct?scott grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12334188123201041182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2437806970149768542007-08-08T11:54:00.000-04:002007-08-08T11:54:00.000-04:00lee,As you know, the only way anyone can unequivoc...lee,<BR/><BR/>As you know, the only way anyone can unequivocally prove/disprove the existance of God, is to break the time-space continuum or return to us from the dead with tangible evidence, and barring some supernatatural intervention, these things will never happen.<BR/><BR/>So that leaves us with the here and now. Not even so much what was, or what is to come, but right now. Debating these same unsolvable cyclic topics has little to no contribution to the quality of anyones present life (unless you're pursuing a major in phylosophy or divinity...in which case, we're all in trouble!!;)...IMHO.<BR/><BR/>Christianity vs Atheism. I think the more relevant question is: which one is "good" for me, you, the world, right now? Better yet, which one will contribute to a more purpose-filled and life-enriching existance here on earth, that will not only have a positive effect on me and my surroundings, but leave a lasting and meaningful legacy? <BR/><BR/>The existance arguement will <B>never</B> go away, so why not talk about things that actually matter...right now?<BR/><BR/>Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the subjects and comments here are substanceless, or pointless. I'm just saying, for the sake of gleaning <B>something</B> of practical worth from this site, how about we talk about things that we actually <B>can</B> apply to our lives?<BR/><BR/>thank youlowendactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509676520378562142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91261429314952639802007-08-08T11:27:00.000-04:002007-08-08T11:27:00.000-04:00btsai & david,thank you both for your patient resp...btsai & david,<BR/><BR/>thank you both for your patient responses. I will most certainly take them to heart, and I am happy to say that I have gained a better understanding of your position.<BR/><BR/>However, I still don't think it changes my premise. My point was simply one of authority. Whereas I have chosen to to validate God, and therefore put Him in a place of authority over me. You have not. By your very statement that God is created/claimed via humans, He is--at best--on the same level as you, should you even accept that He exists.<BR/><BR/>Based on these facts (and I think I'm pretty safe there), our analyses/understanding of Him will forever have different results.lowendactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509676520378562142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46301418929504680542007-08-08T00:13:00.000-04:002007-08-08T00:13:00.000-04:00Hi all, in reviewing the responses since the last ...Hi all, in reviewing the responses since the last time I was on, no refutations have occurred. The only relevant rebuttals that I have seen are challenges to the premises, which as I see it, need backing with scripture, or to show why my premises are wrong scripturally. Since we only know anything about god from the scripture, personal opinion doesn't count much. <BR/><BR/>Those of you that say god wouldn't do this sort of thing are confirming my assertion that it is chance and is not used for soul building, which means that god, if he exists, chooses not to do anything, <BR/><BR/>for those of you that say that this is part of his plan, that he chose this method even though he could have chosen any other, means that god, if he exists, chooses not to do anything about it,<BR/><BR/>For those of you that recognize that evil is in the eye of the beholder, bravo, I agree, but that doesn't say anything about why an all good god who supposedly loves us so much would let needless suffering persist. If they are not suffering from an "evil", they are still suffering.<BR/><BR/>For those of you that keep pressing on the insensitivity of the article, I wish to offer some of the comments above as evidence that rationale based on faith, and not reason, leads to a callous heart in rationalizing away horrible suffering to support a belief that is contradicted by the evidence. While I realize that saying "they do it too!" doesn't justify my use of the material, the goal of drawing out and revealing this phenomena in text for analysis does.<BR/><BR/>to refute the assertion that there is too much evil/suffering in the world for the claims that an all good god exists requires you to admit that you don't really know anything with any certainty about god at all. Appeal to mystery, and at the point, all you can say is you don't have enough information to make an informed decision one way or the other, so you call upon the precautionary principle to choose the safe bet (on god and the appeal to mystery) and draw upon your slew of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases" REL="nofollow">cognitive biases</A> rather than the evidence to support your world view. You call it faith.<BR/><BR/>Assert, till you are blue, that atheism is a faith, but the evidence against an all good god is compelling, and the inference that if god existed, this should not be the case is not unique to atheists but happens to christians as well. To explain that away, you need to challenge sound principles of reasoning.<BR/><BR/>For those of you that recognize that you are struggling with two contradictory beliefs, the name for it is <A HREF="cognitive dissonance" REL="nofollow">cognitive dissonance</A>. It causes people to resort to denial, and it is widespread, cuts across categories of people, and even appears to extend to the highest levels of government.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70063642620111851962007-08-07T21:49:00.000-04:002007-08-07T21:49:00.000-04:00Beautiful Feet. What do you think I'm saying? Try ...Beautiful Feet. What do you think I'm saying? Try now. Give it a shot. You can do it. But it will require you to think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86073685676799835482007-08-07T21:44:00.000-04:002007-08-07T21:44:00.000-04:00John, what are you saying? That as long as you do ...John, what are you saying? That as long as you do this behind their backs and they don't find out, it's justifiable? That seems incongruent with one who claims superior sensitivity towards others' suffering - I really don't understand how you are defining what caring about others means. I dealt with this as head-on as I could. <BR/><BR/>Bye for now!Beautiful Feethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14868646492757287704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47327997594340999322007-08-07T21:20:00.000-04:002007-08-07T21:20:00.000-04:00David B. Ellis, thanks for fielding that one :)low...David B. Ellis, thanks for fielding that one :)<BR/><BR/>lowendaction, please take some time and think about what David B. Ellis said. I think that's a far better portrayal of the median atheist position than what you've been working with. You'll find it much easier to discourse with atheists once you see our position for what it really is (and isn't).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00481093782039815284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87039040012261908632007-08-07T21:00:00.000-04:002007-08-07T21:00:00.000-04:00MMM, listen, every time we have tried to highlight...MMM, listen, every time we have tried to highlight human suffering in light of a belief in an omnibenelovent God some Christian (usually) has said we are exploiting those who suffer...every time.<BR/><BR/>My position on this is that, 1) We are more sympathetic to their suffering than Christians who try to superficially explain it away as something toward a greater divine good. 2) We would never be so insensitive as to make this argument directly in front of a person who is suffering, so since we are not saying this to the people who are suffering, we are doing nothing insensitive or wrong. 3) If we can never talk about real human suffering in real people's lives then that's exactly what Christians want us to do so they never have to deal head on with what their faith commits them to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1509005444077611912007-08-07T20:51:00.000-04:002007-08-07T20:51:00.000-04:00I will admit upfront that I did not read the comme...I will admit upfront that I did not read the comments on this post. So, if I am restating something that someone else has said I apologize.<BR/><BR/>Below is the argument:<BR/><BR/>P1. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent<BR/>P2. God is Good.<BR/>P3. God permits suffering because it creates a greater good.<BR/>C. There should be no suffering that does not add value to the greater good.<BR/><BR/>P1. Correctly states what Christians believe.<BR/>P2. Is not an exhaustive representation of what Christians believe but will suffice as a correct premise.<BR/>P3. Does not correctly reflect what Christians believe. <BR/><BR/>The conclusion is therefore false.<BR/><BR/>I know that what you are attempting to do is critique our worldview by showing alleged inconsistencies. However, I wonder why? What is your motivation? If you think there is some “good” to be gained by showing a contradiction in our worldview how do you account for that result being a good thing? What atheistic presupposition can serve as a foundation for your motivation in seeking this result?<BR/><BR/>If you have none then your motivation is irrational.<BR/><BR/>I do believe that it is good and beneficial to point out and correct logical contradictions. However, “good” has a rational foundation within my worldview.<BR/><BR/>If an atheist was true to his presuppositions he would not care to debunk Christianity.David Kearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17186331498574851542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61661686083144062582007-08-07T19:47:00.000-04:002007-08-07T19:47:00.000-04:00Jopseh (I apologize for misspelling your name prio...Jopseh (I apologize for misspelling your name prior) - I use sarcasm - I dish it out sparingly, but I can take it as well - it's not for everyone, that's for sure.<BR/><BR/>My intention for commenting here was not to present argumentation or assert my own superiority over another person. I don't know if you paid a visit to the referenced site on this post, but I did and it touched my heart deeply. I felt grieved that their circumstances were aired thusly and felt it might be useful to raise an awareness alert here that these are very real people with very real losses and not to objectify their grief for purposes of debate. <BR/><BR/>I am appealing to and asking the author of this post that the link to the anacephalic angels website be removed.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Manifesting Mini Me (MMM)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08250513504254425163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6937289921074321092007-08-07T19:23:00.000-04:002007-08-07T19:23:00.000-04:00Even without having the ability to compeltely disp...<B><BR/>Even without having the ability to compeltely disprove God, the position the atheist stands on is: "I do not accept that which God (or man about God) claims to be." Meaning (in my way of understanding) "I am greater and smarter than God, because I do not recognize His supposed presence."<BR/></B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm not a believer in the existence of God because I find no convincing evidence that he is real.<BR/><BR/>That has nothing to do with who is smarter than whom.<BR/><BR/>As for "accepting what God claims to be", God has yet to claim anything to me about his nature....only humans have done that.<BR/><BR/>As for what men have claimed about God, I have found their claims unconvincing because they have no evidence to back them up.<BR/><BR/>That isn't a judgement about anyones relative intelligence. Its simply a difference of opinion.<BR/><BR/>As for your Option A and B, I find neither of them to fit my views and there are about forty umpteen million other options to choose from.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71168974151681982942007-08-07T19:21:00.000-04:002007-08-07T19:21:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65125690858649807562007-08-07T18:50:00.000-04:002007-08-07T18:50:00.000-04:00btsai, Thanks for the clarification. But I have t...btsai, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification. But I have to be honest with you, it doesn't jive with much of what I read here. When someone compares God to fairies, they've made it quite clear that have absolutely no reverence for Him. I'm not saying this because I might be offended. It's just an observation. <BR/><BR/>Even without having the ability to compeltely disprove God, the position the atheist stands on is: "I do not accept that which God (or man about God) claims to be." Meaning (in my way of understanding) "I am greater and smarter than God, because I do not recognize His supposed presence."<BR/><BR/>This does not nesasarilly imply an overly inflated sense of ego, it's simply a logical conclusion about who's left on top.<BR/><BR/>Metaphorically speaking, this leaves the atheist looking "down" on God, whereas the Christian chooses to look "up" to Him.<BR/><BR/>I make a decided effort to assume a neutral vantage point when discussing God here (try being the key word;). My question is whether my atheist counterparts are willing/able to do the same?<BR/><BR/>Very often, one gets a very strong sense of pride and defiance when God is so easily put in His various atheist boxes. Though I would quickly add, that we have our fair share of bible wielding ignoramuses present as well!!!<BR/><BR/>thanxlowendactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15509676520378562142noreply@blogger.com