I would think there would be a lot less barracking as such, if those of a religious bent would be as clear as you have been in your post above , that they are not asserting God exists but that God may exist.
Well, that isn't quite my position, I do assert God exists -- in the sense that I believe (on faith and for various reasons) -- but I don't claim to have proof that he does nor do I argue in such a way that demands anyone seeing merit in my point of view would be forced to agree that he does either.
First let me say that, of the examples you cite, surely you must agree to a point at least that axeman really does give some extremely eloquent and well laid out argument.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion, however I'll have to disagree and say I find it the standard atheist fare and don't see anything particularly impressive (and hardly eloquent) about it all. That's not to say axeman's position isn't reasonable; I think it's eminently reasonable and if he wishes to live his life in that way all the best to him. I do happen to think he's cutting the journey of greater understanding arbitrarily short, but that's not necessarily any grave problem.
Gordon Gekko raises very good points, even if rather energetically - you can't condemn someone for that. Yes there is the LMAO!!! but I have to laugh my arse off many times at GG or FPC or vinny nolan's etc outrageously irreverent comments.
Again, I respectfully disagree.
Early on in a thread somewhere Daniel_M once asked his 'opponent' to define God. A great starting point,, [paraphrasing] if you believe in God please explain what God is so I can understand... No definition of God was provided. I guess once you define God you are left open to have any definition queried, in the end that seems to lead inexorably to a blind faith conclusion.
Ok, let's look at that.
I'm not sure that's the best way to begin. Sure, this was a car or a golf ball or a piece of pre-cambrian rock we might want to define what we are discussing, but God is so much more an abstract concept that, imo, by his very nature seems to defy definition. However, I submit that we do all understand what God is -- even atheists (who may well claim otherwise) -- even though we don't have a crystal clear definition. Much in the same way that as children growing up we understood concepts like love and beauty before we were ever handed a dictionary definition of them. Rather than starting with a definition, I think a definition ought to be the end point of an investigation into God.
Now, although I don't have such a definition, I think we can still make some kind of comments on the nature of God. However, before doing that I should address the question below:
So I ask again alfonso, just what is so complicated about religion
Stu, if it's going to be a matter of "BZZT, your religion is wrong. next please", then okay, it's all very simple. If all you want to do is leave it at that, then I don't think I can accomodate you. However, if we're willing to look religion in terms of its place in humanity, the meaning humans derive from it, evaluating notions of "religious truth", understanding, or attempting to understand, the mysteries of life, of the universe and of humanity's relationship to them, and the nature and validity of the kinds of ideas that emerge from such a reflection, then religion becomes quite complex indeed.
