Crabsy,

I wish I had time to comment on your comments as clearly we are the sceptics apropos the current scientific orthodoxy, the strongest critique of which is its elision of the structure of reality that is unconsciously imputed to it. I'm talking really about social reality, the paradigm within which scientism "objectively" differentiates phenomena. But having deposited that unseemly pile of words, I fear I can't spear the time. For now I'd observe that, God's aside, liberal rationalism seems to be both the disease and the putative cure.
There's gotta be a buck to be made in that!

The human race has passed through one Copernican revolution after another and I suspect we're not done with being humbled yet.

AJPhilips(et al):

Either I have expressed myself very poorly indeed, or you simply refuse to admit that I have written what I have written, or you just can’t comprehend what I have written. I discard the last possibility because you are obviously very intelligent. I prefer to reject the second possibility. So let’s assume that I need to express my view more clearly.

You write:
A. << I have not demanded that logical-empiricism be the sole arbiter of truth and decisions of any importance.>>
B. << All I have said is that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is [so far] the only reliable method we have for arriving at the truth given what we currently know.>>
I again say that B is false.

“Truth” is not only of the scientific type. There is also the sort of “truth” that must be sought within one’s psyche, most of which is unconscious. This sort of truth is pivotal to effective relationships between individuals and groups, and between people and the rest of the ecosystem. To uncover this sort of “truth” takes much hard work, but it require us to use mainly means other than logic and empirical observation. I tried to outline some of these in the previous post, but imagination is the most crucial. This has been proven over countless generations of human experience and in my own. Depth psychologists have demonstrated the proof in more formal ways.

If B is false then A is false. You are making a lord of logical-empiricism.

Next, you write: <<You introduce red herrings such as “values”, “relationships” and “emotions” into the discussion as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate, when you know we’re talking about the existence/non-existence of god.>>

I avoid red herrings diligently. I mentioned these things as examples of areas of life in which “truth” is buried and which are mainly not accessible to logical-empiricism. God is not supernatural, not an entity, not an object. The unconscious, and allowing it access to consciousness through imagination and relationship – these are essential for exploration of what the word “God” means to me

Trav,

Did God incite, induce, encourage you to sponsor children or was it your own inherent sense of morality derived from your upbringing and social environment?

Third world poverty is a direct result of human indifference but a "just God" might perhaps intervene!

We always return to the "God works in mysterious ways" to explain His casual disregard for His children...or we are all Free Spirits which is little comfort to an African or Asian peasant child.

If Johnnie Howard could have a northern intervention then why not Big G with a little divine intervention?

Third world poverty is a direct result of human indifference but a "just God" might perhaps intervene!

Peter King, this is where faith and praying comes in [for all third world children and generations to come] that no more poverty will exist. Without belief faith and prayer for situations, how is God able to intervene?

He can only assist those who open up to Him seeking assistance.

It would be interesting as to how many people over the next few days who do believe in God and pray for their families safety, remain safe. I realise that God does not target people, however those people who are in the firing line meeting the eye of the cyclone on Wednesday night, would feel a great deal more reassured if they could feel and know that God has sent someone to bathe them in love and protection.

Or that people had worked through their faith via other experiences with God and prayed or pray [for their family's safety]. I will be praying for a couple of girlfriends and their children tomorrow as I go about my work and business.

Start another thread on experiences and faith in God, I could list dozens evidenced by myself, however, not 'evidenced' by yourself or others.

Therein lies one of the situations regarding God, Christian debates and/or Spiritualism.

In other words, Peter, I could list dozens of experiences that may be interpreted differently by yourself and others, yet those experiences have reinforced my belief and faith in God.

@weareunique,

"Start another thread on experiences and faith in God, I could list dozens evidenced by myself, however, not 'evidenced' by yourself or others. "

YOU have had personal experience of some event that you attribute to God. However, the irony is that reinforces the concept of a God who only responds to a chosen few...not very fair is it?

I don't know the stats but in Third World Countries I bet the majority are Catholic. Does that mean that they don;t pray hard enough for intervention?

You can't claim that a few (in relative terms) inexplicable "cures" or wished for results is evidence of Divine intervention...if anything it proves God does not exists as why would He be so cruel as to help so few?

Some fascinating insights and constraints, from both sides.
I find 'David' of the atheist foundation to be a most peculiar atheist.
As has been pointed out by Trav and others, his definition of atheism not allows for the existence of God, but even a belief in God; yet he takes umbrage at David f's assertion that one can be an atheist and still believe in the spiritual.
Some other statements I have a problem with:
"Atheists do not lack belief in a god. Belief implies there is something to believe in, in the first place."
Yes, and atheists lack that belief. At least I do, and so does every other atheist I know of.
"No one arrives at any religion independent of a culture."
So who then started all these religions?
...
God?
I'm pretty sure the first bloke(ess) who had the bejaysus scared out of him by thunder or lightning or cyclone or volcanic eruption discovered religion long before she discovered culture.
But then there's this:
"He can only assist those who open up to Him seeking assistance."
Says who? Who makes rules for God?
I accept the argument that God (any god, or gods) is not to blame for 'Man's inhumanity to Man', but I still have trouble with other of his Mighty Works. For instance as David Attenborough pointed out, a parasite that bores it's way into an eyeball, causing not only blindness but incredible pain in the process makes the claim of a loving benevolent Creator a nonsense.
I would much prefer to believe in an uncaring evolution, than an uncaring Creator.