johnnyblue

I sense some circular reasoning here. I think you are missing the point of the first post, and how I tried to adress it. It really has to do with faith vs absolute knowledge. The christian (or for that matter anyone who believes in some kind of God of god) relies on faith as reason for existence or being. The athiest relies on faith in his own reasoning that there is no God and really no reason for being other than chance. All I wish people to see is that we dont have the ability to see all and know all, therefore we should search, not just blindly accept what others decide must be true becuause the feel that this is so. I have and am admitting this goes both ways, this you seem to miss. I as a Christian have to say I dont have have all kwowledge, there fore there could be no God, but (the big but here) I believe [by faith] that there is. Therefore the same must be said of the the "atheist" -- I dont have all knowledge, there fore there could be a God, but - I believe there is not by faith in my own reasoning. This would be i suppose, an athiest by faith, if you wish to call it. Hence, recognizing we come to these conclusions by faith or belief or whatever you want to call, just dont call it absolute. Christians, for the most part aknowledge they are christians by [faith], whereas many, not all, atheist feel that Science dictates that there is no God, so they believe it by ["fact"]. This is simply not the case, Science does not have all knowledge, and it can be shown with Science that there could be the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

My point being that either way: to be a atheist or a deist or a theist, all take faith, faith that you are right, based on no hard physical evidence. To be an agnostic takes no faith, you simply know, that you dont know. I believe there is a God, by faith, for me to try to prove that to somone who does not have faith is really a futile argument. Debates over wether there is a God or not are pointless. Either you believe there is by faith, or believe there isnt by faith in your own sense that there isnt. The term athies implies, I could be wrong on this, that you know there is no God, how? based on hard evidence? If you dont know all then you cant say there is no God, and equally and fairly the same is true if you believe there is a God. My post was meant to address the original which was [i have recently decide I dont believe in god, which means im Atheist. I just dont understand how everyone believes in it. What is your standing on this? ] My answer is they believe by faith. just as He must believe by faith that there is no God.

The term athiest implies "I believe there is no God". Agnostic , "I do not know if there is one or not". I think that unless you are all knowing, you cannot be an atheist. It requires all knowledge to prove there is no God. At best you can say "i do not know if there is or not", I have much more respect for this view then to say " I believe there is no God". Reason and Logic dictates that in order to prove something conclusively you must have all the facts. But hey, if you want to be an atheist, just spend a lot of time determining why you are. :D

I think our bodies are similiar to a computer disc. A blank computer disc weighs the same as one with a sophisticated progam on it. A dead body weighs the same as a live one (until it starts to decompose). In a sense the sophisticated program gets uploaded the main drive. I guess what I'm gettin at is that we are not just our bodies, we are more than that. The sophisticated part of us, our spirit, doesnt just die with the body, it goes somewhere, I believe it goes back to where it came from, God.

I am not a fan of Christian Rock, though I am a christian. I find most of it at best watered down and somewhat comical in nature, trying to be christian and entertaining at the same time. I just listen to secular music, I would rather hear a secular musician who plays good music with lyrics that are positive or at least benign in nature, than some of the music that tries to pass for Christian, in just about all genres. The only guys I have ever been impressed with are Rich Mullins and Steven Curtis Chapman, but I'm kinda old school. :D

There are many scientist today who are holding to the ID theory, "as a theory" Some hold to an alien life form being the intelligent design. This negates the the argument of so called "seperation of church and state" which is not in the constution, but thats another subject. The crux of the matter is that those who wish this alternative to evolution in teaching is This, either present evolution as a theory, not a fact based on suppostions since we were not there at the beginning, or let another viable theory such as ID be presented. In the past this has not been allowed. Instead, there have been cased cited to students in schools to support evolution that have since been proven to be false and misleading. If we are to teach science, then the rules of science must be followed, the main rule being there must be a provable fact to base a conculsion on. The problem with both evolution and ID is there is no real basis for a fact to build on, No one was there to observe the beginning. Either teach evolution and ID as theories or take them both out. Too many biases are ruining the minds of children, on both sides. It just seems that the evolution side is kind of blind to this fact :)