atheism vs. agnostic

[halfassedjediknight]

I always wondered how people could be atheist. How can you be totally sure there are no gods if there is no proof?

I dont necessarilly believe in god, but I believe in the chance that there could be a god, I just have no proof. So I guess I define myself as agnostic.

Sorry if this is a repeated thread. Just thinking.

[suhl]

well the exact same way people can fully believe in god when there is no proof there is one id imagine. im with you though, i cant see how people can be completely sure in something one way or the other if the facts arent in and on that they arent and probably never will be

[halfassedjediknight]

i guess im just too logical for belief.

[mrdevious]

This is a common misconception about proper atheism, a total denial of god in existence or possibility. But I'll try to clear that up a bit. Anywhoo...

Atheism does not claim that god is definitively proven to not exist. Just as the existence of any being the mind can conjure up like the flying spagetti monster or invisible jellyfish, something non-existent can never be disproven since there is no supporting evidence capable of arising relating to something non-existent. Atheism merely states that there is no logical reason to believe in god, and until there actually is sufficient evidence pointing to it's existence, the belief in god has no more validity than any other imaginary being we can concieve of. Logically, you cannot say anything doesn't exist conclusively, since it may exist in some form somewhere in the universe.

[Polymirize]

This is a common misconception about proper atheism, a total denial of god in existence or possibility. But I'll try to clear that up a bit. Anywhoo...

Atheism does not claim that god is definitively proven to not exist. Just as the existence of any being the mind can conjure up like the flying spagetti monster or invisible jellyfish, something non-existent can never be disproven since there is no supporting evidence capable of arising relating to something non-existent. Atheism merely states that there is no logical reason to believe in god, and until there actually is sufficient evidence pointing to it's existence, the belief in god has no more validity than any other imaginary being we can concieve of. Logically, you cannot say anything doesn't exist conclusively, since it may exist in some form somewhere in the universe.

Oh so prim and proper Dev...

Come on now. I've yet to meet an atheist who didn't think absence of evidence wasn't equivalent to evidence of absence.

But most atheists tend to stop talking to me when I point out the similarities between their beliefs and those of practicing catholics.

Does atheism define the atheist? Or do the atheists define atheism?

[mrdevious]

Oh so prim and proper Dev...

Are you just convinced that my tendencies toward analytical explanations means I have no explorative philisophical side Polymerize? I wanted to explain atheism, so i did.


Come on now. I've yet to meet an atheist who didn't think absence of evidence wasn't equivalent to evidence of absence.

There are plenty of atheists who believe this indeed, which is why i specified proper atheism rather than the somewhat illogical brand you described above.


But most atheists tend to stop talking to me when I point out the similarities between their beliefs and those of practicing catholics.

If you mean in regard to a devoted belief in the existence or non-existence of god, the similarities are of course there. But please keep in mind that to be atheistic, sometimes just means a person (like myself) doesn't like to be theistic, but rather philisophical and constantly questioning and trying to understand. Am I to be inseparably percieved in the light cast by other atheists?


Does atheism define the atheist? Or do the atheists define atheism?


A little of both I suppose. Personally, I like to define the atheism. But my atheism primarily extends to a non-belief in dieties. That doesn't mean I reject everything not found in a school textbook.

[smoke it]

atheism isnt a beleif that there is nothing, it is a lack of beleif. agnostics, are searching for the religion which is right for them.

[halfassedjediknight]

agnostics, are searching for the religion which is right for them.


i dont think thats all too true. agnostics believe that there is no proof of higher powers to exist. i dont know how to say they are searching for a religion..id more say theyre searching for proof in order to believe in anything.

[Samwhore]

I feel that much of the A&A population is completely fake. Much of the A&A populations are people who are around 20 years and under, I complete agree with smoke it for the persons im describing above. Many are just people who think, oh, well, I dont like what 'God' stands for, therefore Ill choose not to belive in him. Well, that makes a few A&A's look bad, and add a fakeness to A&A.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Here is more from American Atheists, an organization that has been at the forefront of organized Atheism for many decades:

ATHEISM

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are â??superâ?� natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

â??Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now â?? here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.â?�

American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/)

[Oneironaut]

I am an atheist, and I concur that this does not imply that I have 100% absolute belief in the non-existence of all entities which could be called a "god".

First of all, from a philosophical standpoint, I cannot claim to be 100% sure of anything. Even when I am pretty certain of something, I have to technically acknowledge the fact that I may be mistaken. I am pretty damn sure, for example, that the Sun exists. But it could just be an elaborate hoax set up by a race of super-advanced aliens (or even humans, like in The Truman Show). Or we could be living in a Matrix-like simulation of a world and in the real world there is no such thing as the Sun. Or I may just have been dreaming for the past 21 years and not known it. These are all distinct possibilities, and although I have my reasons to doubt them, I cannot be absolutely sure that my current belief about the Sun's existence is true.

Likewise, I cannot be absolutely sure that something I disbelieve in does not exist. It could very well be the case that Santa Claus does in fact exist, and that there has been some massive conspiracy to keep this information from me. There is a small possibility that there is a race of leprechauns living in a remote cave in Ireland; if the evidence is presented to me, I will accept it. However, this does not mean I won't say I believe Santa Claus and leprechauns do not exist. I do in fact believe Santa Claus and leprechauns do not exist, even though I acknowledge the infinitesimally small possibility that I am wrong about that.

Same goes for God. I think the case against the Islamo-Judaeo-Christian God is stronger than the case against Santa Claus and leprechauns, and here's why. We can logically disprove some entities, because they contradict basic laws of logic or physics. For example, we can prove there is no such thing as a square circle, or a perpetual motion machine, because we know there is no logical way these things could possibly exist. They defy the fundamental laws of our universe upon which all of existence is based. The traditional Islamo-Judaeo-Christian God is logically impossible in this way. It is impossible, for example, for an entity to be both omniscient and omnipotent; if it knows all its future decisions, it lacks the power to change its mind. Therefore, we can conclude that no omniscient, omnipotent entities exist in the universe, just as we can conclude that no square circular entities exist in the universe.

But as for other conceptions of God, it really depends on what you're talking about. Everybody, it seems, has their own personal idea of what God is, and very few of them are willing to actually define what they mean by the word "God" before they go out bashing atheists for not believing in it. I am an atheist with respect to all the gods that people have defined for me. If they actually take the time to give a clear definition of their God, it pretty much always ends up describing some entity with logically contradictory attributes (i.e. God is omnibenevolent, but he's also willing to wipe out thousands of children in a tsunami), or it's just a bunch of gobbledygook that doesn't make any sense (God is ENERGY...oh, but not the physical kind Einstein was talking about that can actually be observed and measured).

[peacetrain]

I think Atheists see the probability of God being so minuscule it's not worth it to search for one. Agnostics see the probability of a God as being much higher, but aren't sure how to define it or whether to follow it. Religious people obviously aren't thinking about probabilities at all. (do you know how many fucking religions there currently are/have been...and only one could potentially be correct, if any)

[Oneironaut]

I think Atheists see the probability of God being so minuscule it's not worth it to search for one.
Wow, you actually took the time to learn the correct spelling of the word "minuscule". I haven't seen it spelled correctly in a loooong while. Thumbs up! :thumbsup:

[Polymirize]

Are you just convinced that my tendencies toward analytical explanations means I have no explorative philisophical side Polymerize? I wanted to explain atheism, so i did.

Not at all. I just found your definition of "proper atheism" to be amusing. It's a rather common problem for religions I suppose, to have an diseparate number of followers without a unified belief. "These people do not represent true fill-in-the-blank", they'll say to one another.
Christians intolerantly killed another homosexual? well, they weren't really christians then were they? Obviously, a proper christian would never do something like that. Such individuals are merely a stain on the good name of christianity.
So how do you separate the intolerant and illogical atheists from the remarkably humanist and loving individuals described in Breuk's post (for example)? Definition paints with a broad brush and bold strokes. And ultimately it still tells us nothing.
Individual belief always differs from doctrine. What does christianity mean to the christian? What does atheism mean to the atheist? Regardless, if you choose to pigeonhole yourself into a defined category, you can hardly be surprised when you get lumped in with the rest of those who do as well... can you?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

....Definition paints with a broad brush and bold strokes. And ultimately it still tells us nothing.
Individual belief always differs from doctrine....
just as each religious person's relationship with a higher power is unique, so too is each atheist's belief that no such being exists. for many, atheism is nothing more than a rebellion against the religious nature of established society. for others it is the final step in taking ultimate responsibility for their own actions, no omnipotent creature to blame for their own failings. then there are those that fall between those two poles, a thousand shades of grey as with any other faith.

where to draw the line between agnosticism and atheism? for me it was an exact moment, in a church believe it or not, when i felt that my questions had been answered well enough for me to make the necessary conclusions. as an agnostic i sought to define the power behind the workings of the universe, as an atheist i realized that if that power exists it has no direction. as an agnostic i searched for some merit to the belief in an omnipotent being, as an atheist i found religion to be nothing more than a stumbling block on the road to man's moral evolution.

[halfassedjediknight]

I feel that much of the A&A population is completely fake. Much of the A&A populations are people who are around 20 years and under, I complete agree with smoke it for the persons im describing above. Many are just people who think, oh, well, I dont like what 'God' stands for, therefore Ill choose not to belive in him. Well, that makes a few A&A's look bad, and add a fakeness to A&A.

it has nothing to do with whatever it might be that 'god' stands for. it has to do with substantial evidence. if theres no evidence of god, of course there isnt any evidence for what he/she stands for.

and im sure you base your age theory on just that..theory. do you really know?

[smoke it]

of course there isnt any evidence for what he/she stands for.

there can be evidence of what a person stands for if they dont exist now. the bible is what god stands for. (well, mostly anyway)

think of Martin Luther King Jr. he dosent exist, but what he stood for is clear.

[halfassedjediknight]

there can be evidence of what a person stands for if they dont exist now. the bible is what god stands for. (well, mostly anyway)

think of Martin Luther King Jr. he dosent exist, but what he stood for is clear.

oh man.

the bible is the story of god, and mainly the rules of religion. not what god stands for.

and martin luther kind did exist, so thats why we all know what he stood for. dargh.

[halfassedjediknight]

im buzzed so sorry if this sounds dumb..

..but id like to propose an inquiry to all the believers of deities and other religious gods to humor myself..

..i have heard that 'god' has no beginning, and neither an end.

while i could care less for the no end part..how can you have no beginning? if you have no beginning, how can you exist in the first place?

it is unfathomable and illogical.

humor me please.

[couch-potato]

Also, if God was real, what did he do for the eternity before he supposedly created the universe? What disturbed the equilibrium there, a perfect being does nothing but exist, so his creation of everything is logically impossible. Was he bored? Lonely? A perfect being cannot have emotions, yet in the bible God clearly has our human-like emotions. If God knew everything, then there would be nothing that he could emotionally react to. When mankind came up with the idea of God, they gave him human traits, which an omnipotent being cannot have.

Finally, if God is perfect, then evil should not exist.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[RyanTheCaveman]

Upon death i shall know everything.

[halfassedjediknight]

Upon death i shall know everything.

if only the dead could speak freely..

[Gatekeeper777]

I used to date a girl who claimed to be an Athiest.
But when we were having sex and she would orgasm she would scream OH GOD! OH GOD!
how can you cry out to something that is non existant.?

[smoke it]

oh man.

the bible is the story of god, and mainly the rules of religion. not what god stands for.

and martin luther kind did exist, so thats why we all know what he stood for. dargh.

ya, bad example. but the bible is what god stands for, which are the rules of religion.

[Pink_Floyd]

well, if you think that there may be a slight chance of a god as stated in the Bible or Koran, then aren't you just being lazy? Think about it, if there is a slight chance that you will go to hell, wouldn't u do something to avoid it?
Personally, I don't believe in an omnipotent God, and definatly don't believe in an abrahamic god.

I believe there is a greater chance that spiritually and mentally higher beings, aliens if you will, created man rather than an all knowing god. The so called god that is refferenced in the Bible and Koran are just further derived from Sumerian "mythology". All the stories of the old testament: Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and so on, are all derived from earlier sumerian sources.
So if anything, then the sumerian gods are the true gods.

Ironically, sumerians never think of their gods as omnipotent, but rather living beings with a wide range of emotions and thooughts - much like us. These so called "gods" are actually beings that arrived from literaly another planet called Nibiru, as stated in The 12(notice the significance of the number 12) Tablets of Sumerian Creation.

I didin't want this to be a brief history lesson but I just think this shit is interesting as hell.

[Pass That Shit]

God has always been. From everlasting. He was not created. He is the physical matter that has always existed. Do you believe that matter was created or has it always existed? Sounds like you're in the same boat as the christian.

I don't think God is evil in his judgments. I believe he judged the Earth with the flood. You can judge him that he's evil all you want, but I'll stay away from that. I don't know who the evil people are. He does. If he's wants to get rid of them to make peace, then so be it. He's doing a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Aren't you in favor of locking up the criminals? Be patient the court date is coming for the criminals. Don't associate yourself with the criminals.

And as far as logic. To me a logical person would know that there is NO possible way the Earth and everything in it would be so perfect without an architect. We are of the Earth. We were made from the dust and water of the earth. To the earth we shall return.

I hope you enjoyed the humor. :hippy:

"The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works."

[mrdevious]

And as far as logic. To me a logical person would know that there is NO possible way the Earth and everything in it would be so perfect without an architect.



NO possible way? With big capital letters and all? To me it seems illogical to just assume there's NO POSSIBLE WAY, without actually researching the complex natural mechanisms that actually do explain how the earth could be created. Think of it this way, all natural systems that don't exist in balance are bound to destroy themselves, while all natural systems that are in balance are bound to thrive and remain in tact. It is only logical that balanced systems of matter would eventually form into stable forms while the inbalanced whipe themselves out.

There is plenty of explanation for how solar systems, galaxies, planets, and yes life could come about through gradual and complex mechanisms. What is massively illogical is to declare that an intelligent architect is the only possible sollution simply because your limited mind can't understand anything else. After all, if a being as incredibly complex as god could naturally exist in and of itself, why is the same benefit of the doubt not allotted to the less complex systems that are planets and life? Or shall we just continue to ignore these problems since they don't fit our presuppositions?

[couch-potato]

NO possible way? With big capital letters and all? To me it seems illogical to just assume there's NO POSSIBLE WAY, without actually researching the complex natural mechanisms that actually do explain how the earth could be created. Think of it this way, all natural systems that don't exist in balance are bound to destroy themselves, while all natural systems that are in balance are bound to thrive and remain in tact. It is only logical that balanced systems of matter would eventually form into stable forms while the inbalanced whipe themselves out.

There is plenty of explanation for how solar systems, galaxies, planets, and yes life could come about through gradual and complex mechanisms. What is massively illogical is to declare that an intelligent architect is the only possible sollution simply because your limited mind can't understand anything else. After all, if a being as incredibly complex as god could naturally exist in and of itself, why is the same benefit of the doubt not allotted to the less complex systems that are planets and life? Or shall we just continue to ignore these problems since they don't fit our presuppositions?


I was right about to reply, but then I saw this. Thanks for saving me some time, off to bed now. +rep

[rabbitslayer]

I used to date a girl who claimed to be an Athiest.
But when we were having sex and she would orgasm she would scream OH GOD! OH GOD!
how can you cry out to something that is non existant.?

It's a commonly used expression. It conveys meaning. How? The same way you say anything else. Say this out loud right now: "I have thirteen apricots in my pockets." OMG how did you just say that if those apricots are non existant?

I've done that too and I don't believe in any god. I regularly exclaim "jesus christ" or something like that... mostly because it gets under religious people's skin... "holy fucking christ what WAS that?" ...

It's satirical for me, really...

Oh yeah, atheists can say that the same way Christians can (they talk about God all the time but he really doesn't exist :) )

:jointsmile:

[Polymirize]

There is plenty of explanation for how solar systems, galaxies, planets, and yes life could come about through gradual and complex mechanisms. What is massively illogical is to declare that an intelligent architect is the only possible sollution simply because your limited mind can't understand anything else.

Agreed. I think science and evolutionary theory have done a remarkable job of constructing a coherent theory as to how the galaxy and eventually life itself evolved.

In regards to Jedi's post however. I have to admit that what I can't wrap my logical mind around in any way shape or form, is the moment of creation itself. Materia ex nihlo? Did god create the universe? who created god? Maybe god/the universe creates itself?
the moment of genesis, or any perspective on the universe outside of time is so beyond our current understandings. We have no way to describe it, and yet, here we are, apparently existing.

Yay us I guess...

[Reefer Rogue]

I'm 99.9% there is no god, which is why i'm agnostic.

For me, meaningful language is only about things in the world. Since we can't point to the world and point out god, he is meaningless to me. That's basic, i can't be bothered to go on.

[Reefer Rogue]

I am an atheist, and I concur that this does not imply that I have 100% absolute belief in the non-existence of all entities which could be called a "god".

First of all, from a philosophical standpoint, I cannot claim to be 100% sure of anything. Even when I am pretty certain of something, I have to technically acknowledge the fact that I may be mistaken. I am pretty damn sure, for example, that the Sun exists. But it could just be an elaborate hoax set up by a race of super-advanced aliens (or even humans, like in The Truman Show). Or we could be living in a Matrix-like simulation of a world and in the real world there is no such thing as the Sun. Or I may just have been dreaming for the past 21 years and not known it. These are all distinct possibilities, and although I have my reasons to doubt them, I cannot be absolutely sure that my current belief about the Sun's existence is true.

Likewise, I cannot be absolutely sure that something I disbelieve in does not exist. It could very well be the case that Santa Claus does in fact exist, and that there has been some massive conspiracy to keep this information from me. There is a small possibility that there is a race of leprechauns living in a remote cave in Ireland; if the evidence is presented to me, I will accept it. However, this does not mean I won't say I believe Santa Claus and leprechauns do not exist. I do in fact believe Santa Claus and leprechauns do not exist, even though I acknowledge the infinitesimally small possibility that I am wrong about that.

Same goes for God. I think the case against the Islamo-Judaeo-Christian God is stronger than the case against Santa Claus and leprechauns, and here's why. We can logically disprove some entities, because they contradict basic laws of logic or physics. For example, we can prove there is no such thing as a square circle, or a perpetual motion machine, because we know there is no logical way these things could possibly exist. They defy the fundamental laws of our universe upon which all of existence is based. The traditional Islamo-Judaeo-Christian God is logically impossible in this way. It is impossible, for example, for an entity to be both omniscient and omnipotent; if it knows all its future decisions, it lacks the power to change its mind. Therefore, we can conclude that no omniscient, omnipotent entities exist in the universe, just as we can conclude that no square circular entities exist in the universe.

But as for other conceptions of God, it really depends on what you're talking about. Everybody, it seems, has their own personal idea of what God is, and very few of them are willing to actually define what they mean by the word "God" before they go out bashing atheists for not believing in it. I am an atheist with respect to all the gods that people have defined for me. If they actually take the time to give a clear definition of their God, it pretty much always ends up describing some entity with logically contradictory attributes (i.e. God is omnibenevolent, but he's also willing to wipe out thousands of children in a tsunami), or it's just a bunch of gobbledygook that doesn't make any sense (God is ENERGY...oh, but not the physical kind Einstein was talking about that can actually be observed and measured).

Je pense, donc, je suis.

[suhl]

i just dont like the entire idea of organized religion so i am definitely not "searching for which religion is right for me" it isnt a shoe for the love of pete

[smoke it]

Je pense, donc, je suis.

say what?

[Samwhore]

Think about it, if there is a slight chance that you will go to hell, wouldn't u do something to avoid it?


No, I actually would rather go to Hell than Heaven if there was one. Who is God to say what is right and wrong, and who is he to decide who gets into Heaven? Seriously, I think that as much suffering there is supposed to be in Hell, I'd rather live in Hell, and know that I lived my life the way I wanted to, rather than try to set God's values to help me direct my life.

[Pink_Floyd]

No, I actually would rather go to Hell than Heaven if there was one. Who is God to say what is right and wrong, and who is he to decide who gets into Heaven? Seriously, I think that as much suffering there is supposed to be in Hell, I'd rather live in Hell, and know that I lived my life the way I wanted to, rather than try to set God's values to help me direct my life.
theoretically if he is what created all, then his perception of the cosmos is the true one. Therefore, if he says that hell sucks... then u better believe it sucks :P

[Samwhore]

theoretically if he is what created all, then his perception of the cosmos is the true one. Therefore, if he says that hell sucks... then u better believe it sucks :P

Like I said, I still rather live in Hell.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Like I said, I still rather live in Hell.

better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
better an eternity of nothingness than either of the above.:p

[Samwhore]

better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
better an eternity of nothingness than either of the above.:p

Move over Satan, I'm taking my crown back!:hippy:

[Reefer Rogue]

say what?

I think, therefore, I am.

This is the only thing we can be certain of. That we exist.

[c of green]

religion is for the weak minded people that can't handle life "alone".The only "God" is mother earth and she should not be prayed to just respected and enjoyed.what does that make me?

[halfassedjediknight]

God has always been. From everlasting. He was not created. He is the physical matter that has always existed. Do you believe that matter was created or has it always existed?

to have no beginning is logically and physically impossible to even exist in the first place. if you never began, you never 'were'.

I think that this is just a tool christians use to say 'you just have to believe'.

of course theres no logical or even reasonable explanation for this. so its easy to say 'you just have to believe'.

if he is the physical matter that has always existed, then what does that mean? what physical matter has always existed? not stars, not planets. they originate from something, im not sure what since im no astronomer or anything, but they didnt just appear from nowhere, and they sure havnt been here for all eternity 'with no beginning'.

everything has a beginning, otherwise it wouldnt progress into anything at all. it doesnt make sense.

[jsn9333]

to have no beginning is logically and physically impossible to even exist in the first place. if you never began, you never 'were'.

I think that this is just a tool christians use to say 'you just have to believe'.

of course theres no logical or even reasonable explanation for this. so its easy to say 'you just have to believe'.


That is incorrect. To have no beginning is not logically impossible. It may be physically impossible, as you understand physics, but that still doesn't mean it is logically impossible. We live in 4 dimensions (that we know of... we may discover more someday). They are 3 dimensions of physical space (length, width, and height) and one other dimension... time. It is theoretically logically possible to have something exist in only one dimension (that is the definition of a "line" in mathematics and geometry... both logical sciences). And it is even possible to exist outisde of all dimensions that we know of (in advanced mathematics). If God exists outside of the dimension of time (a theoretic logical possibility) then it is possible for him to have no beginning... he just Is and always has Been. If he exists outside of our spacial dimensions it is possible for him to be invisible or even omni-present.

P.S. - Earlier in this thread (on pg 1) you said you were to logical to believe. I'm not sure that's true. There are extremely logical people who are faithful believers in religions such as Christianity or faithful agnostics. You're just too uncertain of the facts that have been presented to you so far in your life to believe one way or another... I wouldn't say your to logical though. You may be logical, but your not "to" logical. To say so implies people who do believe are not logical enough.

If you don't think there are very logical Christians out there, take a look at Ravi Zacharias (http://www.rzim.org/). He's gotten standing ovations at Harvard University and other respected institutions for his presentations and discussions concerning modern culture and ideas as they relate to logical reasoning and faith. If you'd like I'll send you some of his CD's burned.

The U.S. head of the Human Genome Project, Francis S. Collins, is a Christian. He is a very logical fellow... he would have to be to lead our countries ambitious effort to analyze the human genetic code in its ultimate molecular detail and to succeed several years ago in mapping all human DNA.

Sorry I've only mentioned Christians. I'm sure there are logical believers in in atheism too, I just happen to be a Christian so mostly know of examples from that side of "belief".

[halfassedjediknight]

im still not buying into it. it isnt fathomable to me.
all four dimensions are measurements. if there is a dimension that god resides and has no beginning, where is the measurement? and omnipresence is just unbelievable to me as well. to understand ones potential to be in all places at once boggles my mind. youd have to be traveling at some sort of ridiculous speed or something. if i were a physics major, i would be able to argue more on these things but i major in biology so its a bit out of my league.

its all greek to me, and doesnt seem probable. doesnt make sense.