...Continued

<<What is also confusing is the inability of many languages to distinguish between religious belief and faith or between evidence and proof.>>

In regards to ‘religious belief’ and ‘faith’, I think the difference is that 'faith’ is a state of mind where one mistakes hope and desire for knowledge, while ‘religious belief’ would be the actual beliefs.

Although I’m not sure what your point is here with these two. Why do we need to differentiate between them? Not even Google define searches really acknowledge any real difference...

Religious belief:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define:religious+belief&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Faith:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:faith&btnG=Search

In regards to ‘evidence’ and ’proof’, I don’t think any differentiation needs to be done between these two (despite the negligibly small difference). No, I think I covered what the dilemma is above when I distinguished between the two kinds of beliefs.

So, moreover, thousands of years ago, god spoke directly to people, now he’s apparently so mysterious and undefinable, that incredibly small differences, or the inability of a languages to differentiate between ‘evidence’ and ’proof’ can cause confusion about the belief in him? Why should we have to ‘believe’ in the most significant and powerful being in existence anyway? Shouldn’t we just know? Don’t we have the right to know? The mere fact that one must ‘believe’ should alone ring alarm bells.

It’s often put to creationists that if creationism is true, then why did god make everything appear as though it evolved and formed over time. I think a similar argument could be put to “sophisticated” Christians here too: If god exists, then why is it that the more we learn about the universe, the quieter he gets and the more impossible it becomes to define him?

Actually, in regards to the paragraph david f was responding to...

<<...there is no evidence convincing to atheists, regarding the existence of that Something that is not reducible to the physical.>>

That’s because there is no way of distinguishing between “Something that is not reducible to the physical” and something that does not exist.

Dear Dan,

Yes, there have been issues with regards to the mass of Pluto. Please don't forget the planet is small and a long way away and perputations in Neptune's orbit hinted at its existence. Early estimation were expressed in ranges. Yet, with improved instrumentation it was realised Pluto's mass much smaller, believed to be 0.1 the Earth's in 1960. In 1978, yes, its was downsized again. Yet, what ever site/book you are using is inaccurate, in hiding the progressive re-estimations. False assumptions about Pluto's luminosity also contributed to poor estimations. To me, your source is mixing some actual truths with distored history, to cloud conclusions. I trust the source was just lazy and not dishonest.

.

Dear David F,

.

Back on page 65 of this thread I noted that in your excellent text on freedom of expression you indicate:

"We must differentiate between mere advocacy of actions and actual planning and carrying out of actions".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10725&page=8

And I asked:

"Does this principle not apply to Karl Marx ?"

It seems to me the manner which one judges Karl Marx, his ideas, his writings and his action, depends largely on the answer to this question.

However, I do not wish to bother you with this and unless I here from you to the contrary, I shall presume you consider that the principle does apply to Karl Marx.

Had you thought the contrary, no doubt I should have already heard from you by now.

.

.

Dear Squeers, Dear Oliver,

.

Thank you for your comments on the "Case for the existence of Jesus", I posted on pages 64 & 65 of this thread.

I appreciate your input which is quite helpful.

.

Dear one under god,

.

I have read your recent posts and though I must confess I have great difficulty deciphering them, I suspect that you too are endeavouring to make some comment on the "case for the existence of Jesus", particularly, in your post on page 66.

If so, please be thanked also.

.

Dear all,

.

Any further comments any of you may have, including, possibly, a counter-thesis (a "Case for the non-existence of Jesus") would be more than welcome.

.

AJ Philipps: I think a similar argument could be put to “sophisticated” Christians here too: If god exists, then why is it that the more we learn about the universe, the quieter he gets and the more impossible it becomes to define him?

AJ .....if you are a non-believer and/or Atheist, why on earth, do you continue to question, scoff, ridicule and bother participating with your 'generalisations' about God, Jesus and people of Christian belief/faith? Or are your non-belief previous statements on OLO, not as set in concrete as you would have me believe? Have you ever posed that question to yourself? Look out, the fundamentalists may see an opening or crack in the concrete set around yourself, which brings me to the point of my stirring: tis fear within yourself and generalisational attitude. The key is to look around and observe not only nature but people and their ways of life. The 'key' from 40 years ago were people and experiences that opened my eyes to God and Christianity literally!!

You see, AJ, some people are young souls [age irrelevant], some people are old souls. Those people who are newer souls have a little travelling spiritually to do. My daughter is a new soul and her younger brother an old soul. No religion, just believes from his own experiences.

Keep on travelling AJ.