Dear Peter, and Fractelle,

I should be writing my paper on spirituality, but one last word.

My paper draws heavily on a book by David Schnarch, Passionate Marriage, a fabulous read and highly recommended.

In the final chapter titled, Sex, Love and Death, Schnarch writes about self-transcendence and self-dissolution. He writes:

"Many people who seek self-transcendence don't want to give anything up, and they want the path safe and clearly mapped. However, our unwillingness to give up what no longer fits (i.e.. self-dissolution) blocks us from self-transcendence....Sin is not about unconfined desire - it's our refusal to desire and grow, our refusal to believe in ourselves, and our willingness to live below our potential. Sin is our "not wanting to want"".(p. 400)

Christ invites me to give up what no longer fits, to grow, to believe in myself, and to want to want.

Peters latest is very insightful, the first few paragraphs are the important ones. The world seems to be divided into two types of people. The evidence based people and the feelings people. Everyone fits on this spectrum somewhere. Those occupying the middle can relate to both views and those at the ends cannot easily understand the others world view.
What is considered "normal" in any culture shifts, in the so called dark ages the western world was shifted towards the feelings end. The industrial age which we are in now has it shifting towards the evidence end. It is still shifting and that is what is worrying the feelings end. The fact is comforts that evidences ( food, clothing, high tech) brings are more sort after then the comforts of feelings (art, music, books).
Both world views can be used to explore the other but only the evidence results are repeatable.

Kenny the world is made of many different types of people - not so easily categorised into the two groups you have fashioned. Evidenced based people can be very spiritual and spiritual people can be guided by evidence and indeed work in the field of science such as the author.

I have difficulty with the concept that annina raises ie. human beings require a deity or object of idolatry to be able to see 'outside' themselves.

The fact is that our behaviour or altruistic (non-selfish) aspect is more dictated by both upbringing and genetic tendencies. Back to the old nature vs nuture debate. Reason would have it that both factors play an important role.

Atheism is not impossible. It is not that difficult really. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural being no matter how Peter Sellick or others might like to define it - simple as that.

Nothing is nothing
The problem is the English language the word 'is' implies that it is something in order for the 'is' to be a something. This is the form of Sells argument.
It matter not if an atheist does not believe in Sells nothing or some other nothing. It is still nothing. But 'it is still' implies that it must be something so around we go again.

The Christian Message was virtually ruined by the fake Donation of Constantine, allowing Christianity to later pursue illegal attacks on other countries, particularly the murderous advent of colonialism, which incidentally happened more recently when the Brits stole Kuwait from Iraq.

Cheers, BB, WA.

I am so tempted to join this discussion, but I wonder if there's any point. After all, religious belief isn't subject to rational argument. If it were, it would fall at the first fence: if there's an all-knowing and all-powerful God, the only way he can tolerate the suffering of the innocent (and I'm thinking things like babies dying painful deaths here) is that he doesn't care. It's a circle that can't be squared: caring + knowing + power = action. Lack of action means one of the precepts is false; lacking knowledge or power amounts to not being God; lack of caring amounts to indifference.
No number of words from a religious viewpoint add up to anything but wishful thinking. That may provide some people with comfort, but so does belief in Santa. Or indeed, UFOs.