Define spirit with a positive ontology and I will let you know if I accept or reject its existence.

You can call god Dooglespit if you want to, it does not change the fact that it is undefinable and thus unacceptable from a methodological standpoint to accept as extant.

Spirit, god, dooglespit. Its all the same until an ontology is established.

It seems you are avoiding the conversation's real distinctions and sweeping it away based on semantics, believe it or not its not a semantics game, you can use whatever word you want. Its really a conversation on how faith is established and what is required for a belief.

I am not married to the word atheism, I really do not care. At its simplest form without undue baggage it just means no belief in god. Adding additional things is a common mistake, that does not make it right.

But to ignore that belief is a scale and certainty is not married, hard-locked, to belief is core to understanding people.

I mean its your prerogative to ignore the history of these words in determining there meaning, I think its unwise, but certainly your prerogative.

Prove to me God doesn't exist.

A Spirit is in everyone. How we use it is our own choice. When your spirit leaves, you die. So spirit in essence is your life and when you take your last breath its gone... Shalom...Miles

I'm with ya on this one indeed.

Do you recognize God in the form of a flower?
In an inspired melody?
The whisper of the wind?
The softness of the new fallen snow?
How about in the face of your persecutor?
Do you recognize God in the person of your villain?
Only when you see God everywhere do you see God at all.

according to church of Religious Science, GOD can be male or female. What do u think about that coming from an old lady?

There is no athiests on sinkin ships ,right?

I have been down and felt my fingers touch what at the time felt like the edges of hell and only once in my life did I scream from the pit of my stomach in disbelief of God. That day has been many years ago and still bothers me. I am not a bible thumper, I do not remember the last time I went to church. My point is god in my heart is not a guess, the existance is from a faith that has been inside me during wonderful day, and darkest nights that still ahunt me. Faith in God, and my own will to believe is what has kept my sanity and my love for mankind. My hunmaity to desire to reach out and assist one person smile, is my faith in God. I do not guess, I do not have proof, I have faith.

This is a little something I saved from a while back...jusr for conversations like this...enjoy:

God vs Science

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good..!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good?

Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to face in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. 'Professor, is there such a thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy.
Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

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

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'
'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain - with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

God is the beginning and the end anything I create belong to him and he would be the creator of that thing and yes he could do anything to that creating and it would be good.

And no I can not fathom what God is entirely. All I know is what he chooses to tell me.

And how is "God is God" not meaningful, it's very simple. God is, was and will be. He is everything. He created us and gave a choice, eternal life or eternal separation from him. As the creator of all things you could do that if you wanted to.

It was said that God is a mean person and was compared to a demon. Why cause he threatens us with fire if we don't choose to follow his rules "sounds like an argument an immature kid would have with an adult, who knows better then the kid). No it simply is what will happen if you don't choose him. As a parent would say "my house my rules" if you don't want to choose his house his rules then the only other place you can go is hell. When you die of course. Those are the outlines.

So yes God is. We can choose to except his will and live in his house or we can choose to not except it and perish in hell. That is what God said and God is good. Get it? God is good and Good is God.


He does not want you to burn and be separated from him.

Oh wow - the gangs all here!

I have some serious questions for both believers and non-believers.
Answer truthfully but be careful of your language. Be honest but not manipulative. In other words, speak your feelings and not your prejudice.

QUESTION ONE:
What is it that believers and non-believers have in common? Truely think about this - think about morals or ethics, in what ways are believers and non-believers alike?

QUESTION TWO:
What is the greatest cause of friction between believers and non-believers? By this I mean - what is your opinion, what do you perceive to be the greatest cause of friction?

FINAL QUESTION:
Based on what you think we have in common, and what you think causes the most friction - what do YOU think the most ethical or moral resolution would be?

I'm really curious to know what others think we have in common, why there is perceived friction, and what would solve that particular issue.

This just may dispell the need for anyone to prove or disprove a personal conviction of faith to a personal belief.

Atheism isn't something someone believes in, its ONLY the lack of a positive belief in theism.

Thats it. Its not an assertion of anythings existence, or any concept.

That is rather hard for folks on all sides to understand.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theismp


Deism is either the god without the personae, without a will, or the willful god that just got it started and then does not meddle with his master plan. Every way that has ever been defined without reference to anthropomorphic qualities (the very nature of deism) is equivalent to nature, IMHO. This makes this flavor of deism a brand of atheism where only a few words are defined separately, all phenomena are equivalent pre-afterlife (if you believe that as a deist). The initial starter willful god of deism might as well not exist for beings here and now except to understand nature which is the very structure of gods will.

If there exists a being who's manifestation does not interact with nature, or IS nature then the outcome is equivalence with atheism.


Either there is a god, or there is not.
Either god interacts with the natural world, or god does not.
God either has a will or does not, if god interacts with the nature world but does not have a will then god is equivalent to nature as atheism and naturalism see's it and knowing the mind of god is knowing the relationships of all things natural: science.

If god has will and interacts with the natural world then to believe in this being is to be a theist, if its possible to know the will of this being then you can found a religion.

If god has a will but chooses to never interact with this natural world, then agnostics are right and we shall never know the existence of god, but so are the deist's . . . and its pointless trying to know the mind of god based on zero interactions with the natural world you might as well not believe and if you are indeed uncertain then you truly do not believe and are an agnostic atheist.

Nearly every path leads to atheism, or an equivalent set of phenomena. Even the paths that do not lead to an equivalent set of phenomena are fraught with unanswered questions that should make one pause and take an inquiring path to explore these ideas, anything else IMHO is lacking in intellectual honesty.

If you are a deist who believe in an after life ask yourself if you think god is willful or not. If god is not willful then what makes you think you will be after death . . . . If you think afterlife does not involve will, then how is that really an afterlife, how is that really a god?

If you think god is willful and does not interact in the natural world ask yourself why he would after death . . .

If you think god is both willful and involved and interacts(Theist), then you need to study science (the only objective way for us to know the natural world) and ask yourself where this happens, that to me is the only three intellectually honest positions to take given the set of beliefs.(Many turn of the century Christian Scholars knew this and thus studied nature in great detail)

To ignore the questions is to be an ostrich with head firmly in sand.