Atheism is a faith.

[Mr Clingford]

I'm not sure I get what you mean. Of course there are a lot of things that were formerly thought by many to be impossible (like television) which are now commonplace. One could even argue that they have been "life changing" since they have significantly altered our society.

But even so, when they were proposed, they were always proposed to be things that would be objectively verifiable to everyone. Sometimes spiritualists have proposed similar things, but so far, it has always been shown to be just plain old trickery. That has proven so true that these days that most of those who propose some sort of spiritual power rarely even bother to claim that what they assert to exist can be objectively verified. It is always something like, "you will feel it in your heart" or "you will hear the words, but no one else can".


It is so difficult to get any objectively verifiable spiritual claim that the Randi million cannot even attract sincere applicants.

I'm rambling 'cause I'm not sure what you intended to communicate here.

Er, maybe it was me that was doing the rambling, but I think I can speak better by responding to your next points.

I don't doubt for a second that accepting God as real can be life-changing for the better -- or for the worse (see stories of Slingblade and Roadtoad). That a religious catharsis can change your life is not really at question. The question is whether what you have accepted is actually real. If your life has been changed positively by accepting God, then I am very happy for you. A number of people here, including myself, can relate how their lives were improved by discontinuing belief in God. You might even say it was a life-changing experience.

That says to me, again, that it is your experience that changes you, not an actual God.

I don't think that is quite what I am getting at. I know that disbelieving in God has been a life-changing experience for some people. I have found it very helpful to disbelieve in certain ideas of God. I think people's ideas of god are influenced by parental figures, common images, that kind of thing, but I would argue that they bear little relation to God himself. Part of the faith journey is letting go of harmful images, for some they have to let go the whole idea of God because their experience has been just too awful. That's why I'm not surprised that Dawkins is very antagonistic to the image of God that he portrays, but it bears very little relation to the God that I think exists. I think that God may actually be pleased that some people become atheists and have good, loving and fulfilling lives because I believe he loves everyone and if this has to be achieved by people believing that he doesn't exist then perhaps he thinks, 'So be it'.

I am quite open to the possibility. In fact, I would welcome evidence of a truly loving God. I'm afraid that the God described in the Bible doesn't fit that bill, but I suspect that if there is a loving God, the Christians are very wrong about His nature.

Remember I just said try and be still, quiet and meditate in the presence of the unknown, I said nothing about trying to believe in God, or even the Xtian God. But I think one has to reach out and try.
I believe that this loving God is far removed from a bloodthirsty harsh bastard that some Xtians seem to go on about. I have no faith in this God either. It's just that I believe I have glimpsed a fragment of the true nature of God, which is supremely loving.

I will reply to others but I am out of time now.

 

[sphenisc]

Wordplay can't burrow under it any more than a smaller atom than hydrogen can be made...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

You'd think so..

 

[Tricky]

Remember I just said try and be still, quiet and meditate in the presence of the unknown, I said nothing about trying to believe in God, or even the Xtian God. But I think one has to reach out and try.
I believe that this loving God is far removed from a bloodthirsty harsh bastard that some Xtians seem to go on about. I have no faith in this God either. It's just that I believe I have glimpsed a fragment of the true nature of God, which is supremely loving.

Oh, I meditate all the time. I used to do trancendental meditation, but I found it worked just fine without a mantra.

Question. What is the difference between meditating and thinking quietly by yourself?

Another question: What are you reaching out for? When I reached out to gain understanding, what came back is "skepticism and atheism are the best paths to truth".

I guess I've missed that "true loving" fragment of God. I see love as a positive force in society. I see love in other people. I see love in myself. I can even see love in you. God still hasn't rung in.

 

[Ducky]

Oh, I meditate all the time. I used to do trancendental meditation, but I found it worked just fine without a mantra.

Question. What is the difference between meditating and thinking quietly by yourself?

Another question: What are you reaching out for? When I reached out to gain understanding, what came back is "skepticism and atheism are the best paths to truth".

I guess I've missed that "true loving" fragment of God. I see love as a positive force in society. I see love in other people. I see love in myself. I can even see love in you. God still hasn't rung in.

I love you man.

 

[Tricky]

I love you man.

I'm not giving you any beer.

 

[Ducky]

I'm not giving you any beer.

Why you gotta be hatin?

 

[hammegk]

For me the nature of consciousness or self-awareness is the hard question. I can't even picture a way science can get from physical processes to my sense of CapelDodgerness. Of the little I do know about it one thing is certain : it happens inside my brain. As Trickyness happens inside yours.

The fundamental mistake of woo-suckers is to imagine there's more to it than that, that since we experience consciousness it must be an aspect of the Universe at large. Thus the idea, say, of telepathy tapping into its consciousness-field. A sentient-centric view of the world that is clearly invalid.

Perhaps. Define "sentient".

Need to find something to replace "natural selection" will fix that.

Suggestions?

... "stuff happening" springs to mind.

Indeed. The philosophical question is what are the attributes of that "stuff"?

For an idealist, "sentience" may be top of the list.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Oh, I meditate all the time. I used to do trancendental meditation, but I found it worked just fine without a mantra.

Careful, if people knew about this they might think it is a bit woo!

Question. What is the difference between meditating and thinking quietly by yourself?

There might be none because God might not exist. Even if he does exist there still might not be any difference, but meditating is good for the health anyway! Actually, would you expand on what you mean by 'thinking quietly'.

Another question: What are you reaching out for? When I reached out to gain understanding, what came back is "skepticism and atheism are the best paths to truth".

If you mean what is it I am reaching out for, rather than 'why are you reacing out?', then I am not sure. I find metitating really difficult (I will talk about this a lot more in a reply to RandFan) and, therefore, have found at times trying to have my mind blank impossible. Perhaps it is like being a in room with someone and you are both at peace and with each other and you don't have to talk.

I guess I've missed that "true loving" fragment of God. I see love as a positive force in society. I see love in other people. I see love in myself. I can even see love in you. God still hasn't rung in.

Thank you (you make the Englishman in me want to go 'stiff upper lip! Steady on, old boy, what!). I have often wondered why it is that I have glimpsed this 'true loving' fragment and others haven't, I really don't know. It might be interesting to discuss it further. In addition, I have found a message in Xtianity that is radical and rings true, you see, and even if/when it might somehow be conclusively proved that God doesn't exist this radical aspect will still be true because it is not dependent on that.

 

[Mr Clingford]

When I left religion it was mostly sad for me and the opposite of a catharsis. I kept going to church after I stopped believing in part because of the spiritual feelings that I had. But I knew it was based only on feelings. People got those feelings from believing so many diverse things and gods that it made no sense to simply accept any arbitrary belief system. Belief for belief's sake seemed to me to be false hope. To me it was a lie. I could as easily believe that Star Wars and the "force" were real and form a belief system around the Jedi Knight simply because it made me feel good.

I accept that others don't see it the way that I do and I don't say this to be offensive it's just that the argument of life changing experience makes no sense to me. I've had many "spiritual" experiences and many of those had nothing to do with church or god.

There is a danger of going down the 'no true scotsman experience of God' but I will try and clarify what I mean. I have had 'warm fuzzy' experiences and have been very suspicious of them because I have seen them as products of the situation (a service) and nothing, perhaps, to do with God. What do you mean by 'spiritual' experiences here? What kind of church? You should try getting a spiritual high from some Quaker Meetings (no music, no speaker, mainly silence!). But I suggested in an earlier post trying to be with God by being on ones own in quiet, in contrast to going to church, to point up that I don't think your 'spiritual' experiences might compare with mine - you will have to say more or I may just be barking up a wrong tree.

I have often found that believing in God does not make me feel good. Although I have been a Xtian for 16 years I have found my faith experience difficult for the last 14 years especially. I only doubted the existence of God after I became a Xtian.

But I want to get back to the notion that I am generating by myself these experiences that make me feel good. Now I agree that it is entirely possible that I am doing that, but I don't think that I am. Let me explain. I have had these wonderful periods of what feels like feeling the presence of God (for a few weeks at a time) and in meditation of a wonderful peace and love, but they have been very few and I have had none like them for over 12 years. If they were purely a product of my brain surely I would be better at it (perhaps, though, you can suggest some good reasons why not, I am open to discussion). Perhaps they are very difficult to make in which case I hope that science does discover how I have manufactured these feelings because I dearly want to replicate them as powerfully and as frequently as possible!

 

[Mr Clingford]

Philosophy from me is not something you need to pre-empt.

Evidence the first : you appear to be very taken with your experience, so much so that you're actively swimming with alligators here to get that across. You don't seem at all repelled by these concepts of an involved god and perhaps an after-life.

I am interested in my own experience and what it might mean because I am quite taken with the idea of trying to find out the truth about life, the universe and everything. I'm not sure what do you mean by the phrases 'very taken with my experience' and 'involved god'?

Why would I be repelled by the notion of experiencing wonderful things?

Evidence the second : all the other people I've met who've had similar spiritual expreriences, none of whom has become convinced of something they didn't like. Quite a few of those experiences have been similar to, but not compatible with, yours.

I have come across people who are convinced of things they don't like, some poor buggers think they are damned. Futhermore, how do you know that these similar experiences, whatever they are, are not compatible with mine, whatever they are.

Not being a Philosopher, who would rather hang than come to a conclusion, I conclude that you have a positive emotional response to the concept of a god and an afterlife.

But you have only provided assumptions, not proof. People also believe things because they find them the best fit for the evidence. I doubt that I could believe in something without evidence, but it appears to me that I do have some, albeit evidence that is little use to anyone else.

There've been some recent brain-physiology advances in understanding the mechanics of spiritual experience, but I'm no expert in the matter. I'm pretty good at understanding people, though. People generally believe in what they'd like to be so.

I would be interested to learn about these advances. I'm not bad at understanding people either.

 

[Tricky]

Careful, if people knew about this they might think it is a bit woo!

Nah, I doubt it. At least not many. We have a few wing nuts here, but they're not really that common. Most people here know that meditation is not the same as worship.

There might be none because God might not exist. Even if he does exist there still might not be any difference, but meditating is good for the health anyway! Actually, would you expand on what you mean by 'thinking quietly'.

Yes, I find it helps me calm down and collect my thoughts (though the entire collection will fit in a cigar box). Thinking quietly to me means finding a quiet place where I won't be greatly disturbed and pondering over the things I've heard, seen, felt and reasoned. It is at times like this that I try to separate my own preferences from what makes sense. This is the place where I "change my mind".

If you mean what is it I am reaching out for, rather than 'why are you reaching out?', then I am not sure. I find meditating really difficult (I will talk about this a lot more in a reply to RandFan) and, therefore, have found at times trying to have my mind blank impossible. Perhaps it is like being a in room with someone and you are both at peace and with each other and you don't have to talk.

Aw, that "blank mind" stuff is BS. Nobody can make their mind a blank. I think maybe it means just unfocused. But as soon as you have a thought, it snaps into focus again on that thought, so it is a bit of a misnomer. I'd almost call it "a time of objectivity" where you try to examine your own thoughts through the viewpoints of others and trying to recognize and neutralize your own prejudices. But it's not a ritual kinda thing. You can do it in any situation where you have some quiet time. (I realize that for people "married with children", such situations are rare and fleeting.)

Thank you (you make the Englishman in me want to go 'stiff upper lip! Steady on, old boy, what!). I have often wondered why it is that I have glimpsed this 'true loving' fragment and others haven't, I really don't know. It might be interesting to discuss it further. In addition, I have found a message in Xtianity that is radical and rings true, you see, and even if/when it might somehow be conclusively proved that God doesn't exist this radical aspect will still be true because it is not dependent on that.

I think the key phrase in here is that it "rings true". It resonates with your own secular beliefs and morality. And that is good. I have no problem with the phrase "It works for me". I do have a problem with the phrase, "It's true for me", because I don't like the word 'true' to be used that way. I think 'truth' should be universal, not personal, or else how can it really be true? People could have conflicting 'truths'.

I'm glad God "works for you". Really.

And yeah, it's normal for you to want to share your experiences with that "loving fragment", just as Roadtoad and others share their experiences with... ahem... other fragments. But their experiences are not going to "ring true" with yours, nor vice versa.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am interested in my own experience and what it might mean because I am quite taken with the idea of trying to find out the truth about life, the universe and everything. I'm not sure what do you mean by the phrases 'very taken with my experience' and 'involved god'?

You use such words as "warm" and "loving" when referring to your subjective experience of a god. To be "loving" a god would have to be involved, not some uncaring force of nature or clockmaker that wound up the Universe and left it to run.

Why would I be repelled by the notion of experiencing wonderful things?

"Wonderful" again strongly suggests that you like this idea.

I have come across people who are convinced of things they don't like, some poor buggers think they are damned.

Some people are seriously screwed-up, no doubt about that. Some of them are screwed-up by religion. To take on a religious belief that promises hellfire you have to really damaged. Most people with that sort of idea were indocrinated in childhood. I met this young gay Boer years ago in town, Dutch Reformed Church, damn but that kid had had a hard time.

Futhermore, how do you know that these similar experiences, whatever they are, are not compatible with mine, whatever they are.

I rather think they are compatible with yours. Nothing you've said suggests anything different, you're not coming out with anything new. Same old subjective warm-and-fuzzies that I've heard many times before.

But you have only provided assumptions, not proof.

I hope you're not going to turn Philosopher. You asked for evidence, I provided some, pretty convincing IMO. I don't subscribe to the Philosopher's fallacy that the obvious is not good enough, only an unattainable proof can suffice.

People also believe things because they find them the best fit for the evidence. I doubt that I could believe in something without evidence, but it appears to me that I do have some, albeit evidence that is little use to anyone else.

The evidence is that there is no god - look around, it's not there - and that humans can have subjective spiritual experiences that they find attractive and convincing. Some of them are incompatible with yours but held just as strongly - crack a few bottles of organic wine with some Wiccans (if you haven't already, they're great people) and you'll see what I mean.

I would be interested to learn about these advances. I'm not bad at understanding people either.

Not my field of expertise, I'm a scientific dilettante. Perhaps somebody else ...?

 

[donq]

I have often found that believing in God does not make me feel good. Although I have been a Xtian for 16 years I have found my faith experience difficult for the last 14 years especially. I only doubted the existence of God after I became a Xtian.

Organized religion aside, believing in any kind of god definitely did not make me feel good. I could not come to terms with the randomness of tragedy or the horror that is life (the usual suspects: disease, parasites, death of babies and children, good people dying young).

There is no love in the way the world works - it is strictly amoral. We tend to ignore this uncaring randomness unless it happens to us. Many people have lost their faith after a death of a child or some other catastrophe (the “why me” syndrome).

Seeing awful events as random events as opposed to “god’s will” actually released a lot of resentment I felt toward life in general. In other words, there’s no one to blame - things don’t happen because I’m bad or good or otherwise. I'm just caught in the machinery of life - it is my job to give my life purpose.

 

[Tricky]

Organized religion aside, believing in any kind of god definitely did not make me feel good. I could not come to terms with the randomness of tragedy or the horror that is life (the usual suspects: disease, parasites, death of babies and children, good people dying young).

Ah yes, the theodicy problem. It is one of the main reason why people abandon Christianity. Some other religions don't have such a problem. Their God or gods are not described as "good" or "loving", just "powerful". As such, their gods are accorded respect, but not love.

There is no love in the way the world works - it is strictly amoral.

I mostly agree, but disagree in one small respect. Morality, a human invention, is important in human society. Perhaps it has evolved as a characteristic of animals that live in complex societies. Empathy, the basis of all morality IMO, is required to maintain a social order that encourages reproductive success.

So I would say that "love" or more specifically, morality, is a small part of the way the world works, but only the small part that concerns intelligent animals.

We tend to ignore this uncaring randomness unless it happens to us.

I think that the maturity of a society is determined by how broadly they stretch their empathy. You are most caring about yourself, then your family, then your community, then... how far out do you go? In my mind, the most mature morality is one that encompasses the good of the whole human race. Such an abstract concept is not typical of primitive societies.

Seeing awful events as random events as opposed to “god’s will” actually released a lot of resentment I felt toward life in general.

Yeah, there is an innate desire for life to be "fair", and it is disappointing when we find it is not. But who can you be resentful toward? I think that most of us want to make life as fair as is possible, given our limited ability to do so. That is why law came to exist.

I'm just caught in the machinery of life - it is my job to give my life purpose.

So Right! Finding purpose is your job, not some imaginary God's.

 

[RandFan]

There is a danger of going down the 'no true scotsman experience of God' but I will try and clarify what I mean. I have had 'warm fuzzy' experiences and have been very suspicious of them because I have seen them as products of the situation (a service) and nothing, perhaps, to do with God. What do you mean by 'spiritual' experiences here? What kind of church? You should try getting a spiritual high from some Quaker Meetings (no music, no speaker, mainly silence!). But I suggested in an earlier post trying to be with God by being on ones own in quiet, in contrast to going to church, to point up that I don't think your 'spiritual' experiences might compare with mine - you will have to say more or I may just be barking up a wrong tree.

After I left the church I wanted to talk about my "spiritual feelings" with lots of people because I wanted to understand why I was feeling them and how others felt.

Most people I talked with did not have feelings as intense as mine. Most talked about feeling good or a sense of well being which I experienced but this was a very small part of it. I would say that my feelings were at times very powerful and life changing. I would say that at times it was like there was an invisible presence with me. At times it was like being high on Cocaine or amphetamines. It was a rush. For me there was actually a wide range of feelings from a sense of well being to a euphoric high.

I can honestly say that my feelings were powerful enough to have kept me active in the Mormon church for the rest of my life. It was those feelings that permitted me to compartmentalize my thinking and I think like many devout and spiritual individuals I became a bit fragmented.

Doubting those feelings was one of the most difficult things I have ever done. In the long run though I think it was best for me.

I could rant for hours. I will tell you that I found the cheer-leading aspect of spirit building boring. It is rarely part of Mormonism. My most powerful moments were quite ones. Morning spiritual meetings at dawn in the mountains. A day of fasting in quiet solitude. During the sacrament when it was absolutely quiet other than the occasional sound of shuffling feet or other incidental muffled sounds.

I'll simply agree with you that you are going down the road of a no true Scotsman. Had I encountered someone who thinks the way I do now when I was a true believer I would have doubted that person's "spiritual feelings"?

I have often found that believing in God does not make me feel good. Although I have been a Xtian for 16 years I have found my faith experience difficult for the last 14 years especially. I only doubted the existence of God after I became a Xtian.

I have almost always had a part of me that doubted. That part was pushed down by the believer part.

But I want to get back to the notion that I am generating by myself these experiences that make me feel good. Now I agree that it is entirely possible that I am doing that, but I don't think that I am. Let me explain. I have had these wonderful periods of what feels like feeling the presence of God (for a few weeks at a time) and in meditation of a wonderful peace and love, but they have been very few and I have had none like them for over 12 years. If they were purely a product of my brain surely I would be better at it (perhaps, though, you can suggest some good reasons why not, I am open to discussion). Perhaps they are very difficult to make in which case I hope that science does discover how I have manufactured these feelings because I dearly want to replicate them as powerfully and as frequently as possible!

These are actually well understood. In my sojourn through various books about religious experiences I have read the explanations of neuroscientist who have conducted experiments where they can recreate these experiences to some degree at will using electromagnetic fields, psychotropic drugs and even a centrifuge, the kind used to train pilots.

I don't at all agree with your notion about not being better at it means something. I don't think that follows. You would first need to understand all of the causes of the experience. If you are sincerely interested there is a lot of literature on the subject. I'll dig up references if you would like.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Amen! My earth-shattering experience is with my computer, my higher power. It so transform me that I write all that I can against the god notion all over the world. This keeps me active whereas before using my computer ,I stayed in bed too much.

 

[Mr Clingford]

You use such words as "warm" and "loving" when referring to your subjective experience of a god. To be "loving" a god would have to be involved, not some uncaring force of nature or clockmaker that wound up the Universe and left it to run.

Yes, I do believe, then, in an 'involved God', but I'm not sure how much and to what extent 'involved'. I'm not a deist.

"Wonderful" again strongly suggests that you like this idea.

Yes, like food, if it tastes fantastic it's wonderful.

Some people are seriously screwed-up, no doubt about that. Some of them are screwed-up by religion. To take on a religious belief that promises hellfire you have to really damaged. Most people with that sort of idea were indocrinated in childhood. I met this young gay Boer years ago in town, Dutch Reformed Church, damn but that kid had had a hard time.

Agreed.

I rather think they are compatible with yours. Nothing you've said suggests anything different, you're not coming out with anything new. Same old subjective warm-and-fuzzies that I've heard many times before.

What do you mean by "warm-and-fuzzies"?

I hope you're not going to turn Philosopher. You asked for evidence, I provided some, pretty convincing IMO. I don't subscribe to the Philosopher's fallacy that the obvious is not good enough, only an unattainable proof can suffice.

Why do you have such a downer on examining ones beliefs, as that is what philosophy can do? Of course there is the big problem of how is "obvious" defined! How do you define it and what is your reasoning for that definition? Other people might find other things more or less obvious.

The evidence is that there is no god - look around, it's not there - and that humans can have subjective spiritual experiences that they find attractive and convincing. Some of them are incompatible with yours but held just as strongly - crack a few bottles of organic wine with some Wiccans (if you haven't already, they're great people) and you'll see what I mean.

You seem very sure of my experiences and beliefs when you know very little about me and I would be wary of saying that one doesn't need to as you already know the truth. Since I don't think anybody's idea of God maps very accurately onto God, as the finite isn't great at grasping the infinite, it is quite possible that people of varying faiths may be experiencing something of the same God. Don't make the mistake either of concluding that as some experiences that are described as 'spiritual' can be esaily obtained at any mass meeting of any type, that it means that all spiritual experiences are like that. I'm also discussing this with RandFan so if you don't mind I will say more there.

(I've decided to read a book on consciousness by Rita Carter which I hope is good). I've been reading Piggy's Proof of Athiesm thread and have got to page 7 so far and one I thought I have is that Piggy's, chriswl's and your approaches seem to be that of Logical Positivism so I ask what do you think of its limitations?

If this post comes across as brusque then I apologise as I want to dialogue but we might find it difficult unless we are very careful about the meanings of certain words and understand where the other is coming from.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Most people I talked with did not have feelings as intense as mine. Most talked about feeling good or a sense of well being which I experienced but this was a very small part of it. I would say that my feelings were at times very powerful and life changing. I would say that at times it was like there was an invisible presence with me. At times it was like being high on Cocaine or amphetamines. It was a rush. For me there was actually a wide range of feelings from a sense of well being to a euphoric high.

I can honestly say that my feelings were powerful enough to have kept me active in the Mormon church for the rest of my life. It was those feelings that permitted me to compartmentalize my thinking and I think like many devout and spiritual individuals I became a bit fragmented.

I think though, that there are some Xtians who do not compartmentalise thinking and faith so much (I think it is impossible to say how much). My religion is Xtian and my main tradition is Anglican (Episcopalian) which some people (not you) feel the need to insult because it isn't fundamentalist, says it doesn't have final answers but is trying to grope towards the truth, doesn't say that God created the world in 6 days, has a beard and lives in the sky and that you are going to hell you sinners.

Doubting those feelings was one of the most difficult things I have ever done. In the long run though I think it was best for me.

I have almost always had a part of me that doubted. That part was pushed down by the believer part.

If you are mentally and emotionally healthier then that is good. I wasn't bothered about whether God existed until it really impinged on my life (when I became a Xtian) then it became important because I have an unfortunate desire to know the truth. I am sympathetic to your journey. I am not sure where mine will take me but there are things that I want to investigate more.

I could rant for hours. I will tell you that I found the cheer-leading aspect of spirit building boring. It is rarely part of Mormonism. My most powerful moments were quite ones. Morning spiritual meetings at dawn in the mountains. A day of fasting in quiet solitude. During the sacrament when it was absolutely quiet other than the occasional sound of shuffling feet or other incidental muffled sounds.

Yes, I don't like big crowd occasions which is why I haven't been in that kind of meeting for a very long time. Tell me more about these quiet experiences.

I'll simply agree with you that you are going down the road of a no true Scotsman. Had I encountered someone who thinks the way I do now when I was a true believer I would have doubted that person's "spiritual feelings"?

You know, I don't know whether I disagree with or or not - maybe you have experienced God, I certainly don't know. Maybe I am as deluded as you once were, but at the moment I can't say that.

These are actually well understood. In my sojourn through various books about religious experiences I have read the explanations of neuroscientist who have conducted experiments where they can recreate these experiences to some degree at will using electromagnetic fields, psychotropic drugs and even a centrifuge, the kind used to train pilots.

I don't at all agree with your notion about not being better at it means something. I don't think that follows. You would first need to understand all of the causes of the experience. If you are sincerely interested there is a lot of literature on the subject. I'll dig up references if you would like.

As to whether we can understand all the causes is something that is debatable! I would be much obliged if you would point me in the direction of some good literature for my own knowledge and to see if I can create some highs - wooooh. Don't Bogart that joint, my friend. Actually I would be interested to compare these new experiences with my old ones.

 

[The Atheist]

....to see if I can create some highs - wooooh. Don't Bogart that joint, my friend. Actually I would be interested to compare these new experiences with my old ones.

I hear salvia works wonders.

 

[The Atheist]

I think though, that there are some Xtians who do not compartmentalise thinking and faith so much (I think it is impossible to say how much). My religion is Xtian and my main tradition is Anglican (Episcopalian) which some people (not you) feel the need to insult because it isn't fundamentalist, says it doesn't have final answers but is trying to grope towards the truth, doesn't say that God created the world in 6 days, has a beard and lives in the sky and that you are going to hell you sinners.

You're not bloody Rowan Williams are you?

I'm sure I've heard that exact sentence before....

(can ya just keep the hell bit, please, I get a feeling of genuine compassion when I taunt christians with it)