[donb9006]

Originally Posted by kittygilchrist

Would you define atheist as someone who believes there is no God because they cannot prove it logically to their satisfaction?
If so, then I would ask how one can firmly disbelieve something that cannot be proved or disproved? Why take such an illogical position?
It seems as irrational to me to disbelieve as to believe since neither position is subject to empirical proof.

Why believe something until you can be reasonable sure it's real? Do you routinely believe things you have no reason to believe? Why? Belief is a voluntary action. To disbelieve is the natural reaction until a REASON to believe is found.

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

I find comfort in believing in a higher power, and the power of prayer.

Therefore, I would not find any comfort in being an atheists.

People should follow the dictates of their concious, and seek the truth, in what is right for them, Anything else, is folly. IMHO

Yes...people should follow whatever is best for themselves...it IS folly to try to change people.

Originally Posted by capecodbob

The statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an aphorism used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as in war, all people will believe in, or hope for, a higher power.
The origin of the quotation is uncertain. U. S. Military Chaplain William Thomas Cummings may have said it in a field sermon during the Battle of Bataan in 1942.

The above gleaned from Wikipedia.

But atheists are on a mission and what we see here is a "toe in the water" and a very coy way of moving on to more "troubling thoughts" that they have with the believers.
Get prayer out of the schools, bibles out of motels, no crosses anywhere, and minimize any faith.

Sometimes. I'm more agnostic. I have NO idea if there is or isn't a "higher power". But I agree that having to live with some of the religious dogma gets frustrating.

Originally Posted by kittygilchrist

How well you illustrate exactly and more to the point than I...
why in all rational thought would one adopt a position against English speaking squirrels?
or equally illogical, against a God who loves you and gave the life of a human-born son out of love?
there is nothing rational about either...perhaps a squirrel talks, or perhaps trillions of believers are wrong.

The only "rational" approach UNTIL you have reason to believe is non-belief. To believe without anything to make you believe is the irrational. It IS irrational to BELIEVE in a talking squirrel. It's not irrational to NOT believe in a talking squirrel because none has ever been found in all the quadrillion squirrels that have existed.

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Well, yes and no. In one way I feel better knowing that we still have some freedom of speech, at least up to this point. A fight takes two or more people who feel like fighting. But should we even call it fighting? Maybe it's arguing or discussing. And no one is compelled to stay on this thread if they don't like what it's about.

Freedom of speech? You believe that? It's an argument to the one whom is losing. It's a discussion to the one winning.

I've been saying it for years...if what they're talking about unnerves you...don't read it!

Originally Posted by BarryRX

You have reversed the premise again. One does not adopt a position against English speaking squirrels, rather, one does not adopt a position for them. There is a world of difference in those statements.

There sire is...why don't people see that?

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Not sure if that analogy is apt. Maybe, better would be ask where the non-speaking squirrel came from let alone the proverbial talking one? Darwin and his followers do not really do it justice as the various species have had to come from somewhere whether or not you believe that a God tinkers with how the species come together.

Again, I have NO idea how it all happened...but the explanation offered by religions...all/any of them, just doesn't cut it for me.

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

Found a good rule to follow when posting. Found this on experience project . Com. I don't think all will accept being corrected even if the are wrong, bul, I will try.

From experienceproject.com


We are all intitled to our opinion and others opinions can be offensive and just plain rude. Some people do this intentionally to get "a rise" out of people especially if they know it upsets you. Don't get mad at all of them but pick your battles. Have your opinion ready and occasionally engage some one on the subject so you don't always feel like people have no idea what they're talking about. Don't argue but genuinely listen to what they're saying and correct them and inlighten them to what just may be the truth. Some people form an opinion based on misinformation and if you can correct they're misunderstanding of a subject you just might make a positive change in someones life.

That's what I TRY to do...just give people another view, whether I agree or not, something opposite to think about.

Originally Posted by kittygilchrist

The point of my comment is that God's existence has yet to be empirically proved, and appears to be non-existent in the absence of faith. That does not make God non-existent; it means that He cannot be apprehended by intellect alone.

For an atheist to aver confidently that Spirit does not exist because he has only used mind to seek it, is inadequate reason for rejecting the existence of a realm that cannot be comprehended through reasoning.

It make it HIGHLY improbable, about as probable as the talking squirrel. Do you think there IS a talking squirrel?