On the whole, that's probably a good thing, crabsy.

>>I have not been aiming to win a debate about atheism-vs.- theism or to "convert" anyone to some sort of religion (old or new).<<

Such an attitude will prevent disappointment, anyway.

But on reflection, I think the cuckoo in the nest of your argument is this throwaway line of yours.

>>Speaking as a Christian, I can only agree with the author...<<

Given that the bulk of your support seems to come from Eastern mysticism, I am hard pressed to find any parallels between your views, and the Christian religion.

Panentheism has a far more comfortable place within non-Christian manifestations of religious belief. For a start, it requires you to discard the Bible - both halves - which seems to be the central pillar for most Christians I know.

At your present rate of progress, I see you converting to Hinduism sometime next August. Lord Krishna awaits.

Crabsy,

Don’t worry, I have never thought that you were out to convert (you just don’t have a proselytizing tone in your posts) and nor have I ever been under the impression that you thought God could be proven through language.

<<The question of the reality of God can never be settled through language, "evidence" presented to the public, etc.>>

Strictly speaking, no, it can’t. But I don’t think the fact that it’s near impossible to rebut your version of God using any language at all (forget “settling” anything), is simply a co-incidence. Obviously you’re a rational enough thinker to accept that the criticisms from atheists are valid and this, I suspect, has helped shape your concept of God.

On the topic of deceit, please note that I did add, “even if the only people you are trying to deceive are yourselves”. But it really doesn’t look good when you call yourself a Christian at the same time as rejecting the core tenets of Christianity and adhering more to a more Eastern form of religious of belief and worship.

Surely you could understand how that would come-off a little strange to say the very least?

Dear AJ Phillips,

"So if you are of the Eastern religions"

I am glad that you looked up my nom-de-plume. I have reasons to identify with this character who had a bad start, was not born among the virtuous, but at the last moment swapped sides, forsook his evil brothers and joined the warriors of light.

There are so many religious orders, doctrines and traditions, but there is only one religion - that which brings you closer to God is religion, no matter if it is done in an eastern or a western context or even as an activity of the atheistic society. Belonging to a group, any group, does not make one religious. I am not affiliated with any, but I try to take the best from all, then even add my own.

I am encouraged to lately hear more Christian priests preaching in line and in spirit with the ancient eastern traditions: they may use examples from the bible because that's their and their audience's cultural background - what's wrong with that?

I suspect that if you were living in India, you would have as much criticism about the eastern religions (take the demonization of widows for example) and as much tolerance of the Abrahamic religions. Sadly, the human nature (and the human mind) can spoil even the best of gems - this doesn't mean that what is spoilt has no value, once brushed up.

You should also take into account that in any geographical part there are children as well as the less-intelligent, and those need easy, digestible stories to get them started on the path to God. The unscientific/fictional nature of those stories does not mean that they cannot inspire people to take the Godly path.

<<…life without God is a logical impossibility...>>

Reasoning is that there is nothing but God, including life.
(to assert that there is something besides God would be to limit God, thus turn Him into "something")

Dear Pericles,

Not only does your dictionary attempt to define the undefinable, not only is it biased towards the Abrahamic traditions, but even within those it selects a clumsy children's-version definition - there are better approximations around.

"Some of these, in my direct experience, were self-appointed martyrs who roamed the streets of Belfast"

That confirms my suspicion that you haven't yet met religious people. You encountered people who abuse the name of religion.

How did I know you were going to say that, Yuyutsu?

<<Reasoning is that there is nothing but God, including life. (to assert that there is something besides God would be to limit God, thus turn Him into "something")>>

Okay, then my next question would be, “How do you know there is such a manifestation as God?”

To which you would then reply, “God is not a manifestation. For God to manifest would be to limit Him.”

Therefore, essentially, all you’re really doing is attaching a second label to everything. The problem with this, however, is that all these things already have labels and so your additional label - in fact, your entire concept of God - is a redundancy that lacks any explanatory power and serves only as a potential cause for confusion.

So it appears that your version of God DOES actually exist despite your claim that he doesn’t.

But hold up..!

To get around the double-think here, you claim that everything is illusory. Okay then, but how could you know if it was? If everything is illusory, then how can you possibly tell the difference between illusory and not-illusory?

As if that wasn’t convoluted enough, though, your God is also BEYOND existence. But if God is everything and everything is God, then everything is beyond existence and if everything is beyond existence, then how do we know what existence is and that everything is beyond it?

Do you see the problem here, Yuyutsu? In your attempts to overcome the problem of placing limits on a God, you end up creating a lot more problems than you ever had to begin with.

<<You should also take into account that in any geographical part there are children as well as the less-intelligent, and those need easy, digestible stories to get them started on the path to God.>>

Ah, but to claim that God sometimes needs to be reduced to digestible stories is to claim that he has failed the most basic test of communication.

And that would be placing a limitation on him.

As I recall, Yuyutsu, we were discussing a definition of God...?

>>Not only does your dictionary attempt to define the undefinable, not only is it biased towards the Abrahamic traditions, but even within those it selects a clumsy children's-version definition - there are better approximations around.<<

The problem here is, that by reducing God to an indefinable non-entity (I have got that right, haven't I?), you are restricting your audience to only those people who are able to think in those terms, as a matter of upbringing and culture.

Most of the "Western" societies that have embraced Christianity, or one of its cousins such as Islam, have built into their religious rituals the concept that their deity has some "form". The Trinity construct, for example, is most explicit as to the relative roles of the three, actively encouraging their adherents to convey the message to others in this fashion. Think "Missionaries to Africa in the nineteenth century" for a moment, and you will have to agree.

So whichever way we look at it, you are attempting to found a new religion entirely, one that is based upon Eastern mysticism, but that has some form of Christian face painted on.

>>I am encouraged to lately hear more Christian priests preaching in line and in spirit with the ancient eastern traditions<<

My atheism regards this as yet another indication that religion itself is simply another form of a "make it up as you go" self-help manual. This cut'n'paste approach may have the benefit of answering a few internal questions that the "clumsy children's-version definition" fails to address, but is no more convincing, for all that.

>>That confirms my suspicion that you haven't yet met religious people. You encountered people who abuse the name of religion<<

Funny how you all say that, isn't it? In my version, I encounter people who abuse others, in the name of religion.