david f – I don’t think it is a matter of faith on my part to believe that we are meaningfully communicating; there is good evidence to support the contention. You have written something that expresses rational ideas and I have replied along lines that make sense in view of what you wrote (even if we do not agree about everything) and you in turn reply, also along lines that make sense. Other people can read our comments and follow the discussion.

So why is that not clearly meaningful communication? It seems to me to be indisputably so.

If we are meaningfully communicating how can this be possible? If all that exists in the universe is nothing but atoms bumping into each other (which would be the case if atheism is true), how can atoms bumping into each other generate a logical interaction of ideas, such as we are having here?

It seems to me that that is impossible. It is only if we ourselves have at least some control over what we think, say and do that it is possible for rational discussion to take place. In order to have such control there must be something about us that enables us to override the otherwise deterministic nature of the universe. Hence the very fact of our discussion now gives us, I think, very good reason to believe we have a soul or some or other element that is not part of the physical natural world.

If you have not seen it perhaps you would like to read an earlier article I wrote for OLO which is relevant to this discussion: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1715

Yuyutsu: you say--
God is self-evident (though not his existence):
If you see anything - That's God.
If you hear anything - That's God.
If you smell anything - That's God.
If you think anything - That's God.
If you feel anything - That's God.
If you don't feel anything - That's also god.
You are - therefore God is!

Let me fix this for you:
God is self-evident though not his existence- according to you because without any justification you assert it so
If you see anything - That's part of the universe.
If you hear anything - That's part of the universe.
If you smell anything - That's part of the universe.
If you think anything - That's part of the universe.
If you feel anything - That's part of the unvierse.
If you don't feel anything - Then you're most likely dead! (or unconscious or some other altered state of mind)
You are - therefore you can enjoy the beauty of the universe and its workings by making *real* observations on it!

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«There's a difference between acknowledging God, and understanding Him.»

I think that we can agree that understanding God is out of the question: God can be experienced, but not understood.

«Atheists don't acknowledge God, don't believe God is real.»

First and foremost, atheists do not believe in themselves, they don't believe that they are real. Yes, they may tell you that they exist, but by that they only mean that their bodies exist, including their minds and memories, etc. Had they known themselves, then they would also have known God (whether they called Him by this name or otherwise).

This makes the discussion between Graham (JP) and David so fascinating: JP acknowledges himself (suggesting the idea of "soul"), whereas David doesn't.

«Honestly, I don't know why your defending the idea of atheism when you also believe in a concept of God.»

I was not defending the idea of atheism. Rather, I was saying that the difference between theists and atheists (as defined by the Oxford dictionary) is shallow enough to bridge.

Technically, we are all born atheists, having as little babies no concept of God. So what? Do we have no God until our brain is developed enough for concepts? Then suppose we have dementia and lose the memory of the concept of God - do we then live without God? Would we then be forsaken by God? Of course not!

The question whether one holds a belief that "God exists" is therefore not as important. More important is whether or not one lives as one who constantly acknowledges God's presence would. The concept of God and the belief that He exists may be helpful, but not essential for a life in God.

«They can still be in error and believe something that isn't true.»

This is correct. However, while many faults can bar us from the Kingdom of Heaven, having intellectual errors (or missing limbs for that matter) isn't one of them.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«I would say that indeed everything is dependent on God, but God is not everything.»

Indeed. Everything depends on God, yet God is not limited to "everything".

«He is the creator and sustainer of everything, but He is Holy and seperate.»

This is a very healthy perspective and I encourage you to continue to think of Him this way. Doing so you will be safe from danger.

---

Dear Thinkabit,

«Let me fix this for you:»

Thanks, but no thanks: It ain't broken!

Eer...aah... Which God are we talking about?

To Yuyustu,

[atheists do not believe in themselves, they don't believe that they are real]

One thing. We should all strive for is to be honest. In our assessments and our follow through. Just as I advised earlier to not exaggerate a belief of someone else, I'd recommend to you to not misrepresent a belief by saying something that they haven't said. A misrepresentation of someone else's beliefs is a distraction from any other points or discussion and can either put them in a stance to disregard you, or to correct your errors and leave everything else alone.

[we are all born atheists]

I don't know about that. Atheism seems to be an identifier of specific disbelief. Of all the things to not believe in, not believing in God is the only no belief I know if that people identify themselves as. In that respect I'd say atheists are those who not only don't believe in God, but have a bone to pick regarding God and theism. As to your point of not believing in God in our early baby years or remembering the concept of God later in life, I'd bet agnostic would be a more accurate term. It's not a specific disbelief as atheist hold.

[Would we then be forsaken by God?]

In my experience it's a bad idea to start pondering God's decisions as if we would know them. Usually goes down a slippery slope that leads farther from what God actually said or does. To answer your question, no, I don't believe that God would forsake those who never had the chance to live and know life, or to forsake those who under memory loss don't know that they once knew God. I think He would reach out to them, or if they already knew Him and believed, He would hold on to them in spite of their handicap of memory. These are my conclusions based on what has been written in the bible.

(Continued)