Ipso Fatso – you seem to believe that God and truth are mutually exclusive. If there should be a God, which is certainly a logical possibility, then the existence of God would be a valid truth claim.

You say, “there should be observable truth which supports a belief”. Many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, believe that the universe began with the big bang. Perhaps you believe that too. Dawkins has written, “the universe evolved out of literally nothing”. Have you ever seen anything come from nothing? No, and no one else has observed that to have happened either.

So we have a choice between believing that everything we see around us has spontaneously happened into being from literally nothing or believing that God has deliberately brought things into being. Neither option has been observed so the atheist has no sounder foundation for his belief than the theist.

If there is no “supernatural” as you assert, then by definition everything is “natural”, including human beings. You say there are no good or bad processes in nature, just different processes. Presumably it then follows that should a human being brutally torture a baby they would not have done something good or bad, just something different - something “natural”. If someone did that to your child, are you seriously saying that you would just say that was not a bad thing, just something different, a natural act?

Yes, we should face the truth.

Hi JP,

<<"the universe evolved out of literally nothing”. Have you ever seen anything come from nothing? No, and no one else has observed that to have happened either.>>

To simply apply unsubstantiated reasoning; "So we have a choice between believing that everything we see around us has spontaneously happened into being from literally nothing or believing that God has deliberately brought things into being." That is as reasonable as believing all things were created by the Giant Sloth, or the Fat Turtle, because we can't think of any other explanation.

A man demonstrate an internal combustion engine. He asks; Do you know how it works? I say; No, so therefore it must work because of the hamster on a wheel inside of it, there can be no other explanation. That is just as logical as what you are saying.

A JW asked me recently; "Do you believe in God?", I replied; "Do you mean Zesu"....."No THE GOD" he said...I replied; "I'm in Ancient Greece, Zesu is THE GOD."...The conversation didn't go much beyond that point.

Let's get something clear.
We are not material: we are intelligence.
We are the output of a computer programme.
This runs on a computer we call a brain.
Our brain has RAM and ROM and can process data.
It has an operating system.
Just like any computer.
The difference is that the brain cannot be restarted when it ceases to function for more that a short time.

A brain is not self-sufficient.
It needs a support system.
The physical body fills that role.
It supplies energy to the brain.
It has sensors which trigger appropriate responses from the brain.
The body is used for defence.
It will probably be used to procreate.
It is used for communication.
And so on.
It is the brain's interface with the world around it.

Others cannot see your brain working.
They can only observe your 'interface'.
So they treat that as being the person they know.
When the brain stops permanently, we, the person, cease to be.
Our body is then no longer a useful interface.
Instead, our remains can only be a reminder of who we were.
These will degrade naturally, and the material will be recycled.

I think far too much emphasis is placed on what remains of us when we die.
Intelligence is gone, and our physical remains are only a temporary factor.
We have ceased to live, totally, absolutely, and irrevocably.
But I do understand the natural grief of those who remain.
Those who were part of the dead person's life.

To JP and others.

We are not here to enter in to debate.
We are not 'jockeying' for some kind of supremacy.
We are just saying what we think.
We are just expressing an opinion.

The pooling of ideas widens our view on a particular matter.
It allows us to draw on a wealth of life experiences.
This should result in a greater understanding, and ultimately the making of wiser decisions?
It is consensus which gives democracy its strength?

Peaceful disagreement is fine.
As is the need to comply with majority thinking in daily life.
But, should we 'downgrade' another person, merely because he express a different point of view?
I rather think not.

And if I may make so bold...
I cannot help but notice that you frequently answer your own questions.
Which leads me to believe that you have a far greater understanding of the subject than you allow others think you have. ^_^

Paull405 – you seem to think that there is another possible explanation for the origin of the universe than the two I gave – either the universe was deliberately brought into existence by some being (God) or the universe simply happened unintentionally into existence (perhaps by the big bang or some other naturalistic means).

Can you tell me what other alternative there is?

Ipso Fatso – you say, “the need to comply with majority thinking in daily life” is fine. No, I don’t think there should be an obligation to comply with majority thinking. As the saying goes, “five million Frenchman can be wrong”.

I think we should seek truth wherever it leads, even if that means being in disagreement with everyone else.

I certainly do agree with you that we should not downgrade anyone who disagrees with us. I hope I have not been guilty of doing that and apologies to anyone I may have inadvertently offended.

Dear JP,

The majority opinion and those in power in a society establish what is right and wrong in that society. That is true for the Nazi society. It was right for most Germans at that time. Those Germans who opposed that would have been acting wrongly in the eyes of those who supported the prevailing opinion. What people in other places thought did not determine what was accepted in Germany. Most Germans and most German churches supported Hitler. One man who didn’t support Hitler was Franz Jägerstätter. His conscience would not allow him to support Hitler. His conscience was at odds with the consensus of his society. He was a Catholic and representatives of his church tried to persuade him to serve in Hitler’s army. He refused and was beheaded. To me he is a heroic figure. “In Solitary Witness” is a book about him. However, to his society at the time he was a criminal and acted immorally. He refused to serve his country. I was not happy with the Nazi society, but those in control and the prevailing opinion in that society decided what was right and moral for that society. Had the Nazis won WW2 Hitler’s birthday would probably be celebrated in many countries.

I protested the Vietnamese War early in the war as I thought it was wrong. At the beginning many were hostile to me because of that. Later opinions changed. I don’t have to accept what most people think is right or wrong, but what most people think is right and wrong determines what is right and wrong for their society.

I have not decided between free will and determinism.

I have never been presented with any evidence which seems reliable for the existence of a God so my conscience tells me I must be an atheist. I must accept the truth as well as I can determine what it is. I feel we would be better off without religion.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

I don’t think we know enough about the brain to assume that the brain is analogous with a computer.