Hey it's a sensitive subject for me, don't rub it in.

I used to sing "Funky col madena" however you spell it, I don't really remember it at all, but instead of funky i'd say "Fucky" and my cousin was mean, she'd make me say "sit down" to everyone because instead of saying sit i'd say "shit." I had a terrible childhood.

Just kidding, well sort of.

Oh God No!

four posts and already this is the most entertaining page of this thread. burn it, please.

We're still doing this?

An atheist can either believe there is no God or simply lack a belief.

Agnostics claim that we can never know whether God exists or not.

The meanings of words change over time, and it's generally accepted now that atheism covers more than just those like me who actually believe there is no God.

Oh, God (of Mark), Yes! Again, because sooner or later B-Z are going to realize that A is right.

i guess i would consider myself both religious and spiritual -- i practice and believe in Christianity. i am sometimes filled with doubt, plagued by hypocricy and battle with apathy.

And that's before you hit the communion chalice.

A place "we" all find ourselves from time to time.

I definitely agree with you that the idea of the "separation of church and state" is not and was never intended to be anti-religious.

Unfortunately, some people see only two sides--if you don't support religion then you oppose religion. It's similar to the argument that teaching teens about condom use means that you are pro-promiscuous underage sex. But this line of thought leaves out a third side of the argument: neutrality--which is what separation of church and state is largely about. To me, the idea that you shouldn't display a creche or a menorah on government property is not anti-Christian or anti-Jewish, it's religion-neutral--and I think that's a good idea.

The way I interpret the First Amendment, it means that the U.S. government simply isn't (and shouldn't be) in the religion business--the way, say, Target or K-Mart isn't in the religion business. Insisting that the government somehow validate your religious beliefs by putting up a creche in front of City Hall would be like boycotting Target because they won't put a "Merry Christmas" sign in their window.

Not that that would ever happen...

In the beginning there was the LUMP, and the LUMP was with God, and the LUMP was God…In Him was Life…And the LUMP became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[img][381:500]http://www.zondervan.com/jpeg/0310265339.jpg[/img]

Pascal's Wager

Odd that you quote John 1:1 weirdly. That's gonna be my next tat. The Word in Greek. Upper left arm.

this makes no sense at all

I am not an atheist but atheism is not a faith unless that atheist denies God in spite of religion[needing religion to substantiate its opposite]. The burden of proof is on the believer in God in which Faith is the bridge component to that proof. Atheism has no need for faith for proof of non-existence, but rather simply holds that God is not here in temporal real existence. That is a fact by all knowable laws of nature. Atheism can hold true without the existence of religion[God] because it only knows an existence without God. There is no theory or conjecture needed in atheism. In fact it is the conviction in what is known.

Your statement seems to say that because thousands of years ago some group(s) began contemplating a god or gods and over the centuries we have now come to many religions and these faiths in all these gods are true because these gods are real and existing just because we created them and have faith in that fact. Remeber the believer is the one holding up the bag and calling it God. The atheist simply does not see the bag.

Let me tell you a story and when I am done tell your friends and have them spread the news. About 3 weeks ago I was on the rocks by the shores of the tongue of the Carribean. A large statuesque rock of immense humanly features suddenly called out. Aghast, I fell into the lapping waves. The rock spoke out to me. It began to tell me the greatest story ever told and to pass it along to you my fellow man.....

Nope. The atheist sees the bag and calls it a bag.

If the bag holds chocolate, this atheist calls it God.

No. The bag does not exist. To say the bag exists is to say that something is there, even as a bag, that the believer is claiming. You would be correct if independently the believer and atheist came a cross the bag and one called it God the other a bag, respectively.

The bag that the believer is holding?

So the believer is really holding up an empty hand, claiming it holds a bag which the believer calls god.

Got it. Makes so much more sense now.

Well put. I also put myself in this camp but replace "apathy" with "anxiety."

I'm a soft zoroastrian.

Ack. John 1:1. I couldn't remember the chapter & verse, but I found that version on line. Stupid internet.

Nice. Sarcasm.


Yes, the bag does not exist for the atheist.

[img][324:500]http://www.queenmania.net/images/fotografie/freddie_mercury/freddie_mercury_102.jpg[/img]

Fuck... that picture is disgusting.

I am a Taoist Episcopalian who practices Hatha Yoga and Zen meditation. I am a living cliche.

A member in good standing of Grace Cathedral in SF. Spiritual practice in the religious context informs my decisions, cures my psychic ills. I am full of sin. I have access to unlimited grace. That grace can, if I allow it, to make me a more moral person. Original sin is Ego and self-righteousness... always with me and so I always need to seek and receive grace. Simple, huh? Recent regular devotional reading includes Lao Tsu (a constant), Mathew Fox, St. Augustine, Dalai Lama, and Kabir.

Just don't read the Lama's "Instruction on Golf". He has no idea what he's talking about. Dude can't keep it out of the crevasse.