Saltpetre
Thank you for loving Atheists. :)

I love you too. In fact many people don't think about the religious aspect when they meet people in real life. Excepting of course some who appear not quite right eg. those who are into end of the world prophecies and people who think they are Jesus - there are a few of these more radical sects around but they are not the norm.

People either like you for who you are or they don't and who would judge anyone other than by their behaviour.

As an atheist I am thankful I live in a modern secular (traditionally Christian) community because we are at least given safe passage without fear of persecution. I cannot speak for all atheists (we are not an established group) but I would imagine many atheists would live in no way differently to Christians, differentiated only by a belief in God (being mindful of the usual variations of human behaviour).

Trav,

Also, I never had the words available to say so above, but I'd be glad to know your <thoughts about the specific point you raised re: God's appearance of being uncompassionate towards the plight of those who are suffering. I didn't go into it here as it was only one example you chose to make your point (but if you want to discuss my thoughts on that I would be happy to do so)>

Squeers,

Sorry, admittedly I did not respond to that particular definition of "thinking" that I gave. I simply gave 3 definitions that fit my view. Perhaps we have been talking over the top of each other by using different meanings in our terms.

[Also, in my stated view the essence of thinking "is" uncertainty; remember my quote "nothing is certain except nothing is certain"? I'm arguing we can't have "complete certainty"; if we could, thinking would be redundant, no?]

In my understanding, thinking is an act, therefore being a thinker is being someone who engages in the act of thinking. It seems that you, however, are equating being a "thinker" with an epistemological stance of skepticism and agnosticism about claims. Therefore, your definition is actually presupposing a methodology (ie: be uncertain about as much as possible) for the act of thinking and that particular methodology will inevitably, or probably, result in certain conclusions.

Therefore it seems to me that you are making a category mistake here- thinking is an act, NOT one particular epistemological view that may arise from indulging in that act. Given the insurmountable gulf between our differences in the definition, perhaps we should end the discussion about thinking and being a believer.

Regarding suffering, a few brief thoughts:

1. I'm skeptical about the ability of our finite minds to know the intentions of the mind of the infinite God which is what one must claim to know if they make statements like "If God were like this, then the world wouldn't be this way". In other words, you could say my belief and respect for the idea of God's infiniteness and our humane finitess both trumps and transcends my belief in specific aspects of God's nature.

(Cont'd)

2. Belief of the Christian variety provides the Christian believer with resources in the face of suffering. If the Christian God DOES exist, then he suffered the most excruciating and humiliating form of death possible. Therefore the believer can be comforted by knowing that his God understands and stands alongside him in the face of suffering.

3. The claim that suffering and evil objectively exist can actually provide support for the claim that a moral realm objectively exists. This can in turn provide some kind of support, however strong or weak, for the idea that God exists.

4. Building on point 3, a related point: The existence of horrific human evil can provide support for the Christian view of the "fallenness" of humanity. Humans have, at times throughout history actually enjoyed the suffering of their fellow humans and done this for their own pleasure. This would seem to far, far outstretch any kind of evil which is necessary for survival and continuation of the species, which theoretically should be roughly or approximately the most evil we would see if we are simply atoms and molecules under a naturalistic Darwinian paradigm of reality. The existence of horrific human evil for enjoyment sits well within the Christian idea of the fallenness of humanity, and not quite as well with naturalism.

5. Evil is necessary for Christianity to be true, as Jesus "took on the sins of the world". A big part of the sin problem is the inherent evil of humanity. Therefore, in one sense, Christianity actually is more coherent in a world where (some) evil exists than in a world where evil doesn't exist.

I am not claiming that these are completely satisfactory answers or indeed that they will satisfy you Squeers, or anyone else. They are simply some of the thoughts that bounce around in my mind when I consider this issue. I am simply an ordinary person who maintains that it is possible to be a thinking, reflective person and reasonably believe in God and that there are people in this boat.

That's interesting, Trav:
"you, however, are equating being a "thinker" with an epistemological stance of skepticism and agnosticism about claims. Therefore, your definition is actually presupposing a methodology (ie: be uncertain about as much as possible) for the act of thinking and that particular methodology will inevitably, or probably, result in certain conclusions".
Of course I don't say believers in a biblical God don't have thoughts, but that they're thoughts are always "dedicated" to that narrative and so their thinking is restricted. According to my idea of thinking, that's not it--and it's not a matter of "be[ing] uncertain about as much as possible", but not being able to be certain--though I admit you could defend the idea in many ways.

I wrote a book review recently on a very curious text called "Dialectic of Enlightenment: Critical Theory and the Messianic Light" (first time published in English). The author, to quote myself, "regards all humanly-conceived and “dogmatic” dialectical “reconstructions” [thought, basically] as both delusional and non-redemptive in their speculative apotheoses", recommending instead a "protological-eschatological perspective of meaning-disclosure [that] guides but also transcends all theory", saying "That perspective can neither be constructed theoretically (in terms of a speculative idea of cultural disclosure) nor be realized practically".
In essence he's agreeing with Hume--that human reason is irredeemably prey to various influences and fantasms--though not that, a la Hume, we should look for stability in empiricism, but find in the "gospel of the Messiah".
There's a strong tradition of scepticism about the validity of human reason (that us Galahs on OLO would appear to support :-) and the author makes a strong case for his exegetically anchored reality, but finally I find his bleak and passive Calvinist rubric, rather than free thought, rather pointless--why did God give us brains if we're just here to play out Bible stories? And free thought is literally an expression of freedom.

Time permitting, I'll continue, but please feel free yourself and not to wait your turn..