Dear David,

I'm not going to argue with you.

My belief is different from yours. That does not make me right or you wrong or vice versa.

My belief is based on faith. I can't prove anything to you.
Nor do I want to. You are entitled to your belief. Just as I am entitled to mine.

I believe in God and the God that I believe in, is not the one that you see. But that's your right. And the right of all non-believers. I'm not looking to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

As I wrote in an earlier post... I believe in parents who teach their children the beauty that is life. I believe in the words God has left for men, words that can fashion hope from darkness and turn bitter loneliness into love.

I believe in understanding, in forgiveness, in mercy, in faith. I believe in friendship and its power to turn selfishness to love. I believe in lasting love and the painful growth that it requires. I believe in death and the mystery that it unveils. I believe in eternity and the hope that it affords.

As I said earlier, I shall be a Catholic who follows her conscience, demands meaning and relevance from her Church, and will not permit her God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absobing law. I shall be a Catholic until one day, perhaps sooner than I think, I shall return to ashes and to God. He will judge me as He must, but I can say to Him as honestly as I say to you: "I have tried to be a decent human being!"

Foxy,

The idea of this thread is not to convince anyone away from her or his beliefs. By the way, I do tire of the suggestion that Atheists have beliefs. That is only a cover for those with beliefs to hide behind. If you propose there is a god, then that is a belief. Atheists expect those with such beliefs to evidence them if they wish to impose them on children or the wider society. Accepting a god does not exist is not a belief anymore than accepting that fairies do not exist.

If propositions are put forward justifying beliefs in a god and they are faulty, then I will say something about it, as I have with your interpretation of the alleged Jesus.

The trouble with beliefs, as opposed to empirical evidence is that there are many beliefs and many interpretations of them. Oppression and harm is the result as I have exampled. Another trouble is that religious people with ‘mild’ beliefs allow those with extreme religious views to get away with them without protest. If they did protest, the examples I have mentioned would disappear and justice, compassion and equality for everyone in this life would be the rule, instead of only for those arbitrarily chosen by religions.

David

Foxy, were all believers like you, there probably wouldn't even be a word for "atheist".

Though I do encourage you to think carefully just what "faith" really means. Fundamentally, belief without evidence is highly arbitary and, to most atheists, meaningless and often dangerous. The fact that the same word "faith" is also used more commonly used to mean simply "confidence" doesn't help the matter.

Foxy wrote: "My belief is different from yours. That does not make me right or you wrong or vice versa."

Sorry, I'm totally gatecrashing this conversation, and haven't even read the whole thread, but I just read this bit from your post, Foxy, and do not agree. At the end of the day, either there is a god, or there isn't. Either religious people are right, or atheists are right. And if religious people are right, then either Christians are right, or Muslims are, or Jews are, or Hindus or Sikhs or Mormons.

And if there's one, all-encompassing, non-denominational god, who cares not whether your Buddhist or Sikh or Jew or whatever, then all you religious types are kind of wrong.

Of course, we can agree, within culture, to tolerate different points of view, but at the end of the day we can't postmodernise ourselves out of this one - there is an objective reality out there somewhere. Someone's on the money, and someone's backed the wrong horse.

Thoughts?

Dear Wizofaus,

Thank you for your kind words. But as I've stated earlier, I don't need proof to believe. I merely stated on this thread what Christianity means to me.

Dear David,

I was glad to read that the idea of this thread is not to convince anyone away from her or his beliefs.

You mentioned that you tire of the suggestion that "atheists have beliefs..." My understanding of the word "belief" is broader than yours it seems...

"Belief" is not just a religious tenet. It also means an opinion or conviction. (The belief that the earth is flat. The belief that God does not exist...)

I don't "hide" behind my belief. It is a crucial part of my life.

Also what I put forward was not meant to justify my belief in God. It was meant simply as an explanation of how I saw things.

As for the statement that "religious people with "mild beliefs" allowing those with extreme religious views to get away without protest ..." is not true regarding myself.

Believe me David, I have protested and made my feelings known to the hierarchy of my Church on more than one occasion and in several ways. You shouldn't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Wizofaus, I thought that this thread was purely for the pros and cons of religion vs atheism. Why bring homosexuality into it? I don't think it has been mentioned in the thread before. Not everything needs to be addressed as part of the heterophobic agenda.

I agree with your views on religion but don't ever expect me to change my views on sexuality.

I found Steven Jay Gould to be very biased and hostile to other viewpoints while most of what I have read of Dawkins I can agree with. As you, yourself wrote, 'there's no strong consensus yet on the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality'. A message in itself.

As for your denial of man as the "highest creature", what would you put in his place?