Replies

People who think for themselves, those individuals who are not afraid to ask any question, run up against the lack of evidence for a supreme being, and must devise a code of morality from the evidence of their senses (from reality.)

It is difficult to determine exaclt what your position is though by the quote I take I am assuming that you are an athiest. (forgive me if I am wrong)
I have to take issue with this statement. First of all you declare that people who think for themselves. I think entirely for myself. I am completely responsible for my worldview and the positions I hold. In fact I am ultimately responsible for them since in my worldview their are actually consequences for being incorrect.
The statement is so full of incorrect assumptions that are ultimately a product of a position of arrogance. They have no basis in truth or reasoning. "People who think for themselves" Implying that christians do not...this actuallyshows a fundamental lack of knowledge of christian theology. Christianity demands that you think for yourself. The choice of "being saved"" or not having to be a choice made of free will demands that one "think" for oneself.
"Those individuals who are not afraid to ask any question" Once again I cant even begin to understand on what basiss you make such a rediculous proposition. What question exactly are you suggesting that I and any other "Christian" are unwilling to ask. What questions have I failed in the course of my life to ask regarding my belief in the existance of God. It seems to me that I have traveled a long road between being baptised in the faith, becoming an athiest, Becoming convined of deism and finally returning to christianity. My course has been one set by "QUESTIONS" I have not had a day in my life pass when I have not questioned. I just come up with a different answer than you.
"run up against the lack of evidence for a supreme being" This statement is arguable in two ways. First of all when you take is in conjuction with the previous statements it basically is saying that anyone who thinks and questions accepts that there is no proof of God. That statement is so completely absolutly false and so demonstrably so that I shouldnt even bother taking the time to give evidence of it but I will. Simply put there are 2000 years of "thinkers" and "questioners" detailing all of the "evidence" that God exists. This actually ties into the second contention I have with the comment which is you stated "lack of evidence" There is a multitude of evidence of the existance of a Supreme Being. The fact that you reject the evidence does not make the evidence not be there. You may reject the evidence if it is your choice to do so. That is the whole free will part. But the evidence is actualy there. You seem to worship intellec t as so many "athiests do" Einstien himself declared that "science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind" He was adamant believer in God. Every peice of scientific evidence he saw in the universe convinced of that. There are miracles and accountings of God and his angels beyond measure. INteresting that people like you accept without question the existance of Alexander the Great and his exploits despite the fact that there are no works written by his contemporaries who might have known him. It is all gathered from "Accounts" and com,piled together from sources that niether knew him nor for the most part were even alive when he was. And yet we take these pieces of information and accept them as fact. However, let a man claim that God spoke to him, or he wrestled with Jesus and we deny the evdience. "He must have been lying" 3000 witnesses to the Risen Lord and you say we have no evidence. Yet you cannot pull a single account of Alexander the Great from a man who knew him and what we know of him is fact. It shows the prejudice of your mind that you so readily reject evidence of Gods existance simply because you did not see it yourself. And yet I would wager you have never seen a proton, but I doubt that you would question its existance.
But personal accounting aside. The fact is that there is ample evidence of Gods existance. In Fact there are prominant one time athiests who have set out to proive that God doesnt exist only to end up proving to themselves that God does in fact exists. C.S. Lewis comes to mind. You simply refuse to accept the evidence we offer as valid. That is fine and it is certainly your perogative to do so. But you can not say that it doesnt exist. You can only say that you reject the evidence as valid.
"and must devise a code of morality from the evidence of their senses (from reality.)"
This is the last bit of your comment and this too is flawed. Once again based on what comes before it basically declares that lacking evidence a thinking man must devise a code of morality from his senses (reality). I would first of all state again that the supposition that someone that belkives in God doesnt think is grossly erroneous. Secondly I would state that what you claim to be a reality is a very limited thing. As a said you have never sen a proton yet you accept it as a given (even if you have seen the proton the anaology still holds) Ther is one example of a thinking person accepting something on faith without proof. He has not seen it and so therefor it isnt real and no worldview can be based on it..at least that would be the case if rational people actually did operate under your so stated belief that only things that can be seen and witnessed and proven by tactil first hand knowledge are real.
For one thing I would once again point out that there are a multitude of people who would argue that they do have tangible real evidence in their lives. Evidence that is "reality" sensations that are far more real and tangible that the picture of a proton in a science book. You once again choose to reject this as evidence but that does not make it so. Just because you have never experience and "infilling" does not mean that they do not exist. I have never had cancer but I dont doubt that it is out their.
No you can reject evidence and state that you do not "believe" it if that is the position that you want to take. What you can not do is claim that thinking rational people only come to the conclusion that God doesnt exists because there is no proof that can be sensed.
Ever aspect of that statement has been proven to be false over and over again and again. Rational people do belive in God, Rational people do find evidence of his existance, and despite you position even those that do not have first hadn experience of it can still hold their belief "rationally" based on the accounting of others. After all 90% of the things we hold as "truth" in this world are things we have never personall experienced in any tangible way.
You argument is nonsense.

C.S. Lewis comes to mind.

C. S. Lewis, the man that wrote: "Man is a nasty, pride filled, dirty creature."

Those are words of hate, not love.

The statement is so full of incorrect assumptions that are ultimately a product of a position of arrogance. They have no basis in truth or reasoning. "People who think for themselves" Implying that christians do not...this actuallyshows a fundamental lack of knowledge of christian theology. Christianity demands that you think for yourself. The choice of "being saved"" or not having to be a choice made of free will demands that one "think" for oneself.

You bet. Christians are indeed called upon to use their gray matter. "Be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

Rational people do belive in God.

Misterioso - The vast majority of people in this world intuit and infer the existence of God from much available evidence. Given that, they apply their reason to that reality. But you can't get to notions of right and wrong, and of a full-blown morality, with reason alone. If you are an atheist, you get to choose what is right and what is wrong. There is nothing at all limiting your choice. Both Rand and Stalin were rationalist atheists. They just started with different moralities (though Rand thought she actually derived hers out of nothing!).

Basing a "belief" on someone else's "belief" is not rational. A person who thinks for himself would not do it.