Dear Spencer,

I certainly agree.

In the sense you described, "believe in God" is quite different and superior to the atheist notion, perhaps even caricature, of faith, which they understand as "think of the predicate 'God exists' as true".

While we may still differ regarding the idea that God is a deity as well as whether believing in God (as in "pisteuson peri") is the ONLY way for salvation, nevertheless I agree with you that it is the BEST, safest and easiest way.

Yuyutsu

I made an error in giving the wrong preposition when I quoted, 'pisteuson peri'. It should have been 'pisteuson epi' to agree with the presupposition, epi, to which I later referred in my post.

However, the point is valid that to 'believe in/upon' a deity is a legitimate way to designate one's commitment to and dependence on that God. For me, that is the Lord God Almighty through Jesus Christ.

Spencer

OzSpen, Saturday, 30 July 2016 12:14:57 PM

'One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs' (1998).

Both you and Johnson are wrong.

I am not skeptical of gods, ghosts and demons. My position is that you cannot present positive and compelling scientific evidence of their existence. Christians have had 2000 years to find some evidence as described and their efforts have been singularly unsuccessful. When you do find some I'll give it due consideration. I am adopting a cordial demeanour out of politeness and a secular respect Please restrain your eagerness to turn the meaning of my reply above into something it isn't.

Having so advised, I also advise that you and Phillip E.Johnson are falling into the very trap that I outlined in my previous post. The words are slightly different but the claim remains as I wrote it. It opens your own post!

In a desperate effort to burden atheism with doctrine and dogma, with concordances and commentaries, with rituals and observances you [and Johnson] are peddling that threadbare tale of atheism being a set of beliefs. There is a motive for this strategem and it is not an altogether honest one......you are trying to make it much more difficult for atheism to appeal to rationality, reason and logic for support.

Quite simply, you [and Johnson] are declaring in no uncertain terms that your theism holds an inferior position in credibility and you [and Johnson] are trying to infect atheism's credibility thus, by deceitful artifice, reducing atheism to theism's level. Cont......

Cont.......It is revealed with ineluctable logic that the faithful who argue as you [and Johnson] do that each of you is secretly convinced that atheism does indeed occupy a superior position and at all costs must be reduced commensurately in order that theism may compete.

In order for this to be the case you need to change the definition of RELIGION that every dictionary of the English language agrees on. Isn't the martyrdom of inadequacy sufficient for you lot any more? What presumption! You theists should rejoice in the gift of martyrdom from your loving god.

May I quote a much-admired but humanly flawed man universally admired by all humans of goodwill?: "There is nothing more dangerous in the world than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." M.L.K jr.

Oh, and may I offer the following from an intellect deserving of much wider admiration?
"You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into". Jonathan Swift.

Dear Pogi,

Overall I agree with you: atheism does not deserve to be called "religion".

«I am not skeptical of gods, ghosts and demons. My position is that you cannot present positive and compelling scientific evidence of their existence.» ... «When you do find some I'll give it due consideration.»

And at that very moment I'll stop giving it any consideration because anything that can be evidenced is merely material. I do not worship evidence.

«Christians have had 2000 years to find some evidence as described and their efforts have been singularly unsuccessful.»

Yes, this was their attempt at idolatry and they have thus tried to undermine religion. Fortunately they were unsuccessful.

Ozspen
<<<<In the sense you described, "believe in God" is quite different and superior to the atheist notion, perhaps even caricature, of faith, which they understand as "think of the predicate 'God exists' as true".>>>>

Trust in God fails as a viable distinction because it relies on God existing. No point trusting anything that doesn't exist. No point trusting our power with air travel prior to the 20th century.

YuYutsu <<<<<And at that very moment I'll stop giving it any consideration because anything that can be evidenced is merely material. I do not worship evidence.>>>>>

Another misconception. Evidence (Oxford): "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Evidence captures all means of knowing whether a deity such as God exists, or in fact knowing anything.

As per the children's classice, "We're going on a Bear Hunt" - there's no tip toeing around evidence, tunneling under it, or floating serenly above it. The only way you're going to know something is by the available facts or information pertaining to it.

This challenge I give: Any means by which you claim to know the existence of God counts as evidence.