I mean to critisize a bit:
Science is a disciplin partly in Logic and in Reason. These tools are in direct opposition to Biblical teachings and beliefs (faiths).
Faith by definition is belief in something without any reason to do so.

First you have to go down the path of looking at things from the outside in. And being critical of your Biblical beliefs. Biblical teachings, and challenging each point.
Accepting the fact that I will have faith in Christianity, even though I think it can be totally false.

I believe integrity is a moral value that is more important than any faith. I have "faith" in having integrity, always being truthful, even if it hurts.
This value alone has set me to re-think and re-do my own world view.
Its unfortunate that schools don't give good teachings in Reason and in Logic. Because if they did, there would be so many people against those classes because of the fear of losing control of the ones being taught truth. But if you go to College, and take these courses including Sociology, Cultural anthropology. These disciplines alone can give you tools to think and begin to understand religions in general.

Good luck with your belief in Evolution. I mean there really is not other Logical reason that we appear hear on earth.
You should look at the Anthropic principle for a more probable reason as to how we came to exist.

Regards,
Fox

Faith by definition is belief in something without any reason to do so

I disagree. Fox, as an atheist it is true that you have your own faith. The only way anyone could possess a faith-free understanding is to have an infallible knowledge of everything, which is an attribute given only to God. Theistic faith and atheistic faith both make statements about the nature of 'the Infinite' and the Sustaining Reality of Being, (which is what religion is centred around, ultimately. The details stem from there.)

Does the universe have transcendent purpose, or does it not? By adhering to atheism, (and not just agnosticism), you have set your 'ladder of faith' against a particular wall, so to speak, whilst religionists have set their ladder against another.

In the face 'the Infinite', our intellect necessarily breaks down. You can't rely on your head to answer the eternal philosophical questions. There comes a time when we must search deeper. Faith is the first step, and I believe that intuition is the next. (It's also a case of combing the intellect and the heart.)

There's a difference between the cleverness of the head and the wisdom of the heart, and from my point of view your ladder is against the wrong wall.

Hey RW,

First I commend you on stating what you believe. That shows more conviction than many Christians I know. I have dabbled in Evolution myself. In fact I agree with several things such as "Survival of the fittest" and such things. I see them with my own eyes. But I disagree with alot of Evolution too. But I don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are somethings that are worth keeping.

It pleases me to hear that you do have faith in G-D while studying Evolution. Especially since the Evolutionary theory was promoted by an atheist to take G-D out of the picture in England. Upon doing some research I am finding that Charles Darwin didn't really want to push this new idea out but it was his collegue whose name fails to come to my memory. Just keep that in mind.

One more thing I would suggest is analyze the theories being taught and the ones being over looked. Uranium dating and Carbon dating can be proven mathematically but it does not account for the evironmental variables that are not common. One that is over looked is the fact that the speed of light is slowing down. If the Earth is millions of years old it would have burned up a million years ago. There are many other things that are over looked but I wanted to give you a quick example.

We as people come with motives. They are engrained in us when we were small. They may change but they still exist. Just keep such things in mind. Hold strongly to your convictions but also lend an ear to possible change too.

I beleive the truth is out there but I don't think that we will ever know entirely with these mere mortal minds. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and KEEP STUDYING!

AD

Andy, I understand your logic, however wrong it is.
Atheism is lack of faith, just as Darkness is lack of light.
In the face of the Infinite (tilda), the intellect begins to live. Ever heard of Relativity?
Most Christians are agnostic by necessity. Agnostic is a statement bout knowledge, and knowldedge of God specifically. Even your Bible says that you can't know God.
Angostism states there is no possible way of knowing.
Atheism is lack of belief in God (considering the Critical atheist point of view). And there are many types of atheism, just as there are many Gods.
I submit to you that your view of God will never be the same as anothers, so in essence we have about 5 billion views of God floating around. I have a few views of God myself, because it was taught to me in my early years. Yet I admit, that that God I learned about can't exists necessarily.

Andy, how old are you? If your under 22, then possibly you will listen to the voices of reason. However if that seed was never planted, and or you like the Control that religion gives you over others, then I am sorry.

I was a non-denomination Christian for 2 years, yet a prodestant as I was growing up.
Christianity never made me "happy". It never made me really feel good. I was always questioning whethere I was saying the right thing, because I have no evidence that it was right.
Most of my family are Christians, and I respect their beliefs. Even faced with the critique they give mine. They don't argue with me, because I make them question their own faith.
I can't help it, I have to fight for how I have come to believe. That using reason is the right thing.

Atheism is lack of faith,

Most Christians are agnostic by necessity.

Foxjazz, that's faulty logic. (George H. Smith isn't infallible, you know. Some of his conclusions are misguided.)

If you had no faith at all, then you would be agnostic. By adhering to atheism, you make a statement about the ultimate nature of reality, (call it the nature of the Infinite, or the Transcendent, or whatever), necessarily based on faith.

Follow the logic. Atheism claims that the universe is ultimately purposeless and accidental. The only way for the universe to have intrinsic “purpose”, is for such purpose to be held in a higher form of Spirit, or in the Mind of God. If there were no such Higher Power, then there could be no transcendent purpose to life or to the universe.

Atheism states that no such Being or divine Reality exists beyond the universe, and thus claims that the universe has no intrinsic purpose or meaning. Everything is an ‘accident’. Such claims are statements of faith. Atheism is a faith system. You cannot deny this without becoming agnostic or deluded. (If you don't believe me, then prove to me that the universe is an accident. You can't? That's because you have ship loads of faith.)

George H. Smith concluded, “Scratch the surface of a Christian, and you find a dishonest agnostic”. This is not so. The truth is, if you scratch the surface of an atheist who denies possessing faith, then you find the true agnostic, albeit a misguided one.

Theists are not agnostic. We claim that it is possible to know about God. (Incidentally, Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” - John 8.32). Here we find the difference between the cleverness of the head and the wisdom of the heart. Even though our finite intellect cannot fully comprehend the Infinite Reality (i.e. God), we can begin to know the nature of God by tuning into our inner wisdom and heart (spirit / intuition).

I submit to you that your view of God will never be the same as anothers, so in essence we have about 5 billion views of God floating around

Yes, I agree. I believe that all our religions are in touch with exactly the same God, only from a different perspective and cultural context. And because God is so ‘big’, and deep, we will naturally expect there to be lots of different perspectives.

In the face of the Infinite (tilda), the intellect begins to live.

I can't see how our intellect can begin to live, because it can’t comprehend Infinity. But our spirits can begin to live. The Spirit of God naturally enriches and guides the human spirit, after all.

Hey RW! I am like you (But I am Catholic). Sorry this was hidden from me. The bible does not exclude science. It encompasses it. And fills in the gaps (O? The Big bang? Where did that come from?).

I will comment more tomorrow. but good one.

When God told Moses how He made the universe, it would have been necessary to much simplify the process.
If he had attempted to explain the whole thing to Moses, the poor old guy's head would have exploded from incomprehension. 6,000 years of advancements in knowledge and technology, and we still can't figure out, with absolute certainty, how it all happened and came together.

Stephen Hawking, the greatest theoretical physicist in the world (and some say history) used to be a determined atheist.
After he attained a certain point in his researches, though, it became clear to him that, after all was said and done, there was no logical reason for the universe to exist, and nothing holding it together. It shouldn't be.

He is now a practicing Catholic (go get'em, Doc!) If belief in God is good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

Thank you all for posting. I'm enjoying reading the debate. Please continue, if you wish.

He is now a practicing Catholic (go get'em, Doc!) If belief in God is good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

We will assimilate you!

6,000 years of advancements in knowledge and technology, and we still can't figure out, with absolute certainty, how it all happened and came together. Stephen Hawking, the greatest theoretical physicist in the world (and some say history) used to be a determined atheist. After he attained a certain point in his researches, though, it became clear to him that, after all was said and done, there was no logical reason for the universe to exist, and nothing holding it together. It shouldn't be.

Science cannot answer life's biggest questions. (I'm not just talking about science today. I'm talking about science in principle.) Regardless of what science can potentially teach us about the beginnings of the universe, we will still be left with a 'gap' the size of infinity. "What was the cause of that?", etc. or "Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?" There comes a time when the intellect must surrender, (and exclaim "God knows"?!)

The Truth is out there, and the evolution from man's intellect through to spirit is : Ignorance; Faith; Intuition; Knowledge

6000 years out of the 5 Billion when it all first began is really not much to compare when it comes to Science.
Yes, I am an agnostic. I am also an Atheist. I hold the position that unless a God shows up, I am not saying there is one. I hold no belief in a God which is by definition atheist.
It doesn't require faith to be an atheist, are you saying that babies have faith that there isn't a God?
It requires faith to believe in somthing not provable, and that is where the definitions truely end in the realm of atheism.

Just because Deists can't comprehend that not believing is hard because of the culture they grew up in, doesn't mean faith is required to Not believe.
Smith spells it out pretty clearly, even if you think he is misguided. That is an opinion that is not held with critical thought.

I hold the position that unless a God shows up, I am not saying there is one. I hold no belief in a God which is by definition atheist. It doesn't require faith to be an atheist, are you saying that babies have faith that there isn't a God? . . . Smith spells it out pretty clearly, even if you think he is misguided. That is an opinion that is not held with critical thought.

The trouble with your logic Foxy, and with Smith’s, is that you identify God with pink unicorns and Santa Claus. Your premise is therefore faulty at the outset. There was a post on JU the other day by a fella who said that the theistic claim that God exists can be analogised with the following: “There is a flying teapot orbiting Mars. You cannot disprove the existence of the teapot, therefore I conclude that it exists.”

This analogy is on par with your pink unicorn comparison. It demonstrates the wavelength of your logic and reasoning. Without wanting to labour this, my friend, here, we’re not talking about finite teaware or pink unicorns. Rather, we’re talking about the nature of the Infinite – the Ultimate Dimension of Reality, the Transcendent - etc. etc.

Theism - and atheism - make statements about the nature of Reality itself, not some finite object, like a teapot or a unicorn. There is a depth and rationale to theistic belief, to which you are turning a blind eye. (Or maybe you genuinely can’t see it. This would be to do with the wavelength you’re coming from.) In my opinion, Smith’s book "Atheism: The Case Against God", could have been entitled, "Atheism: The Case Against a Shallow Interpretation of Religious Fundamentalism".

It doesn't require faith to be an atheist, are you saying that babies have faith that there isn't a God?

This is faulty logic too. Babies don’t possess the faculties to consider the matter rationally, so they cannot make a stand in faith in the way that a theist or atheist would.

The intellect, and the 'wisdom of the heart', as I call it, are really different subsets, or 'levels', of consciousness. Whilst the intellect alone could be considered a shallow level, the heart could be considered a deep level. When we get in touch with our inner wisdom, (which can eventually become One with the Holy Spirit, incidentally), it strikes a chord with our finite intellect, and we sense what might be called an "Aha!" experience, when someone finally "sees" something obvious that they'd been missing. We all experience the "Aha" moment at some time or another, yet it will happen when we're good and ready. (A lot of people might have to wait until the moment directly after their own death for this to occur. Still, at least they'll have finally got the picture - the bigger picture.)

“There is a flying teapot orbiting Mars. You cannot disprove the existence of the teapot, therefore I conclude that it exists.”

(that was an edit. I'd typed up his analogy wrong.)

"Science is man trying to figure out how God does it." (ParaTed2k's not so famous sayings). ;~D

are you saying that babies have faith that there isn't a God?

---foxjazz

Funny you should mention this. I've often said that one reason I fully accept the existence of God is because of instinct. Not "my" instinctual knowledge of His presence and existence, but because of the very existence of instinct.

When a baby is born, for example, any baby of any species of mammal, it know instictively that it can feed at its mother's breast.
How does it know this? A baby knows utterly nothing; it's mind is a virtual void. Yet, it knows this. It's instinctive.

What is "instinct"? It's inherent knowledge that is simply posessed. But knowledge must be acquired. Therefore, instinct HAS to come from somewhere.

From God, who Himself put the knowledge there to ensure the survival of the baby.

There is a God. I know it instinctively.

One more thing:

6000 years out of the 5 Billion when it all first began is really not much to compare when it comes to Science.

---foxjazz

But when you're talking about 6,000 years times the lives of every man, woman and child who ever lived, it's still quite a while.
After all, it's those men, women and children who are working together toward acquiring the knowledge and technology.