I think the Epicurus aphorism sums it up...we can apply logic or reasoning to determine the existence or not of a God.

If a God can:

* allow endless suffering amongst the poor of the world where millions die from famine, war and disease

* can selectively answer the personal prayers for intervention by some of the contributors to this forum or respond only to special pleadings by Mary McKillop and other dubious worldly "saints" to "cure" the incurable or other inscrutable miracles

* inflict incurable cancers and disorders on innocent children all the while "suffering the little children to come unto me etc"

* generally act as a "god behaving badly" with a spate of disasters and the world's environment in decline

then this is a God with an evil streak that I have no real interest in worshiping.

Of course His Workings can not be known or understood by Man can they? Rather we assume it will all be great in the hereafter, never mind the present.

Ah an epiphany; perhaps God IS really Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub or The Devil!

Explains a lot.

Peter King,

Yes,exactly,the theodicy problem,in my opinion this is compelling evidence against the notion of an omnipotent,omniscient,benevolent deity.

weareunique,

I couldn't think of a less 'cult-like' organization than the AFA,there is no ideology involved,no sacred book,no priesthood,no hierarchy and no sanctions for blasphemy.

General comment,

There are a number of 'NewScientist' reports on the evolutionary basis of religious belief,however they're only available to subscribers. Religious belief is not just an intellectual position.

Philosopher Stephen Law has explored the Evil God hypothesis quite thoroughly, here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=7247672&jid=RES&volumeId=-1&issueId=-1&aid=7247664&fromPage=cupadmin&pdftype=6316268&repository=authInst

Mac,

Any organisation [a group of people]that have an agenda opposing other peoples' religious views and lifestyles in addition to degrading their belief systems, which are law abiding and positive, are behaving in a discriminatory way, one being, as a result of fear, another as a result of being a victim in some way, at some stage during their lives.

ie Fear [of the unknown] and/or a victim of a religious person at some stage.

New Scientist magazines along with scientific research I enjoy, however no Scientist will ever hit on the facts pertaining to God or Evolution.

A complete waste of time.

How do I know this as fact?

'my faith and life experiences'.

AJPhilips (et al):

<< I would suggest that if everyone cared about the truth of their beliefs, we’d be living in a much better world.>>

I whole-heartedly agree. So expect passion in the debate over “truth”. Don’t be surprised if I seem “emotive”, as you put it.

<< Oh goodie...We get to be labelled with an ‘ism’ too now; just to make it sound like ‘fascism’ or ‘communism’.>>

You continue to use words like “theism” and “atheism”, so don’t complain if your doctrine is labelled in the same way.

<<And just how is it a “fundamentalist mind-set” and “every bit as dangerous to humanity (and the ecosystem for crying out loud!) as that of the religious fundamentalist”? >>

Religious fundamentalists reduce truth to the literal statements in scripture: scientism demands that logical-empiricism the sole arbiter of truth and decisions of any importance. Scientism condescendingly brands any other cognitive function or way of dealing with the life as unacceptable or inconsequential.

But science, government and other authorities need to be guided by the right values if they are to operate in the best interests of the ecosystem and any particular species. Becoming aware of our values and evaluating them is far more than a logical-empirical endeavour.

Truth in relationships between individual persons and between groups of people is vital. We must be true to one another. This requires some introspective attention to one’s mind and some careful assessment of the inevitably conflicting urges and emotions operating therein. It requires empathy with the other person or group. It requires appreciation of symbols (as opposed to objects) that we encounter in our own and others’ minds. Logic and empirical observation do not have the major part in this. We need to develop other channels of understanding.

[See next post.]

...Continued.

You assert that “any other method [than logic] is totally indistinguishable from pure imagination.” You mean that imagination is of no value in searching for truth. Wrong! “Pure imagination” is necessary for empathising. “Pure imagination” is vital for bringing material from your unconscious into your conscious mind – an essential task if you wish to be authentic (i.e. true to yourself so that you can then be true to others).

And this is a large part of exploring the Sacred Other (or God or whatever name you prefer).

So children must not be taught that “pure imagination” is worthless or delusory. They must be helped to use it in all sorts of ways. The attitude you express is why the arts, for example, are persistently run down in schools.

Children must be encouraged to take their imaginings seriously. This is how they come to know their own minds. And they need to share these imaginings so they can come to understand others and in that light look at themselves more critically.

I have long advocated much more emphasis on the arts and the introduction of philosophy, as regular, sequential and developmental components of the standard curriculum. Logic and empirical observation are important, but they must not dominate equally important cognitive functions.