Thanks Robert and Alchemist,

I guess my question was try to understand whether atheism have a spectrum (ie degree between 'nothing there' to 'something is there' to 'consciousness' to 'single consciousness' to 'single consciousness that connects all creatures').

The last one is what people like me call God..
But I was trying to get an understanding of the Atheism spectrum (who believes what and who stands where?)

A summary so far:
Christians: I’m right because my version of history and the Bible tell me so.
Atheist: I’m right because there is no proof that any God exists.
Peter: I’m right because the general concept of God is wrong and my Bible tells me so.
Agnostic: Well, we may be right but we’re willing to see what happens.

Really, do perhaps we think too much on the ‘what is’ and too little on the ‘what matters’? If God expects you worship in one way, he’d/she’s/it’d damn well tell you which way.

How about the following:
God does not care how you worship. The ‘existence mystery’ is the test of your character, to see if you can form worthy moral values in an uncertain world.

Note the word ‘worthy’. All morals and ethics are subjective, though one must concede a general root theme running through the various versions.

If we had proof a God existed then many people would know how to act in a certain way, which would negate the aspect of free will that is claimed as God-sent and defeat the purpose of making choices. What choice is there when you know the supreme being IS watching and what he expects? Of course, this all depends on whether you actually believe in a God.

I am no intellectual but I have quite enjoyed reading about the various concepts I had not previously known about. Leaves me with some more thinking. However, as much as thinking is necessary it sometimes gets in the way of reality. Believe if it gets you through life, or don’t if that gets you through life. In the end, you are judged by others on this world and perhaps by another somewhere else.

Preaching is nothing without practicing. As I have said elsewhere, without acceptance and tolerance, you are nothing but a hypocrite – no matter your beliefs.

Peace all.
JustDan

Ash, failing to prove a negative does not itself validate a positive, as I am sure you realised when you posed your somewhat mischievous question.

"I believe the theological debate should be the other way around: prove to me that God doesn’t exist!"

Only the fanatical would even attempt such an act, at which point it would be easy to destroy whatever "evidence" they put forward - shame on you!!

One of the problems with threads such as this is that they waste so much time and energy trying to prove one thing or another, when the reality is that it doesn't matter a hoot. Beliefs are just beliefs. They don't need proofs - in fact they would cease to be beliefs if someone came along and said "God? Of course there's a God. Here's his phone number, give him a call."

Beliefs in this context, and the moral codes they engender, are fundamental to the way we exist and interact as human beings. As JustDan points out, judgement of the results of those beliefs and those ethics takes place on earth regardless of whether it does anywhere else. It is healthy to debate as human beings the relative merits of one code or another - I'm particularly attracted to the Buddhist approach to the sanctity of all forms of life, for example, not just human life - but it is unhealthy to use religion as an excuse for not thinking.

Ash as to types of atheists there are generally two the strong and the weak

The strong think the Christian God doesn’t exist, even taking into consideration you cannot prove a negative in the real world. This is often portrayed as arrogant but may Christians have no qualms thinking that the Olympian, Hindu gods don’t exist. Or that many people have no problem with dragons or fairies.

A weak atheist says I lack the ‘God’ belief which is not the same as saying that ‘God’ doesn’t exist.

As far as the fine tuning argument the case is certainly not conclusive either way and you are still left to justify why it has to be the Christian God or conversely why it isn’t some of agency.

JustDan
>?Atheist: I’m right because there is no proof that any God exists.

Not that there is no proof, but there is no evidence, just like the Olympians or fairies.

>How about the following:
God does not care how you worship. The ‘existence mystery’ is the test of your character, to see if you can form worthy moral values in an uncertain world.

By doing that you deny those God constructs, if you do that why even keep it at all?
& why not if he is all knowing tell us the ‘right’ laws from the beginning and save all the killing and bloodshed while we work it out ourselves?

Neohuman, I could be wrong but I think ontothelogy refers to the normal understanding of God.

Ash,
"Don't mean to stir things but I believe the theological debate should be the other way around: prove to me that God doesn't exist!"
It is impossible to prove the total non-existence of a god, partly because it has a variety of meanings and characteristics. Some forms of Deism can't be disproved. For gods that are well defined, it is possible to show fundamental contradictions and logical flaws, eg. the problem of evil, and there is a natural defense: re-interpret & create uncertainty. (I'm not saying this is a conscious or malicious thing.)

For interventionist gods, those that intervene in our affairs, supporting evidence is theoretically possible but has never been presented to the world. Usually the events are far enough in the past to prevent examination or otherwise the evidence is subjective. That poses a problem for atheists, whose only means to disprove these gods involves showing that the critical claims of intervention are false.

Assuming only weak atheistism/agnosticism, it is theists that are making claims, and so the onus is on them to first show evidence that their claims have a significant probability of being true. Furthermore, when the issue arises it normally doesn't simply involve theists making the claim but also imposing them or using public resources for promotion.

Things may only seem perfect because we wouldn't be able to see them if they weren't. You can be atheistic/agnostic depending on the which religion is in question. And atheism has many meanings; it can include Buddhism since it has no god or exclude anything supernatural. A natural connection between living things would be fine, and in the narrow sense a single consciousness and some forms of pantheism would fit, but it does go against the common meaning of the word.

Hey Peter,
quick question regarding your reference to Luke 4:16ff (I am unsure as to what this ff stands for?- but that is a side question)
KJV "And he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read....
I think it is Luke 4:29 where, after hearing what Jesus has to say they set about to thrust him out of the city to cast him down to the brow of the hill.
Thanks,
Tania