"Figinnn" <Figgy_don't_care_anymore@whatever.com> said:

"normdoering" <normdoer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6433dc7.0401020644.3fffa44d@posting.google.com...

"Figinnn" <Figgy_don't_care_anymore@whatever.com> wrote in message

news:<kJyIb.32528$E17.3337@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...

I choose to believe in a creator, based on my observations of the

around me.

What observations?

These are personal observations.

Whether or not that creator "loves us all" (or even really gives
a damn), appears as burning bushes or incarnates via virgins is for

other

people to worry about, really. Any of these concepts actually limit

god,

even though many of these types of statements are intended to show

humanity

that god has no limits. The book in question is merely a reaction to

the

beliefs in god as demonstrated by others. While an interesting

exercise, it

also has limits.

Is a god without limits a god without definition?

Good question. Perhaps this is why we (meaning humanity) fail when

to define God. Likewise, our logic fails us when trying to prove or
disprove God. Logic does quite well in its native application (meaning
applications in our known existence) but does very poorly when trying to
discuss concepts potentially outside of that existence. Hence why

presentations of deity can be shown inaccurate or incomplete, yet we

have no way to discount all possibilities.

Does god necessarily have qualities we atheists consider a god must
have, like will, intension, intelligence, purpose....?

God doesn't necessarily have any quality we would want/expect/demand that
God have.

Concerning that about which we can say nothing, silence is
appropriate.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:35:07 +0000, Figinnn wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:tec6vv85j2qna5ggch2ntf83j9mv3jjphm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:49:36 GMT, "Figinnn"
<Figgy_don't_care_anymore@whatever.com> wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:dv55vvsllct1g5bpcfi5eb3gcrkf809on6@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:01:37 GMT, "Figinnn"
<Figgy_don't_care_anymore@whatever.com> wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:a403vvgeg0hvmnufgqjl4pt3i3qf279q16@4ax.com...

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:21:19 GMT, "Figinnn"
<Figgy_don't_care_anymore@whatever.com> wrote:

"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message

news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031229132600.16345A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591021200/qid=1072725727/

r

=

1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8528702-5493654?v=glance&s=books

A most interesting topic. Unfortunately for me, it seems geared

towards

the

masses (meaning those literalistic folks of more

Judeo-Christian-Islam

paths). Those of us who attempt to be more reasonable in our

beliefs

and

expectations of "God" realize those pseudo-fairy tales for what

they

are

already. It is still rather impossible to discount the

of

some

sort of god entirely ...

What are the negative consequences of discounting the existence

some sort of god entirely? In other words what hole do you think
it would leave?

I can think of no negative consequence. Any holes would be

holes

and would therefore be my problem.

First of all, just in case there is some misunderstanding here, I

only asking for clarification. I was wondering why it was

to discount the existence of some sort of god entirely. I was
curious no more than that.

No problemo ...

In my opinion, the reason why it is impossible to discount the
existence

of

some god entirely is that the god could exist without our knowledge,
our understanding or our recognition. Absolutely everything anyone

ever said about their ideas about gods could be absolutely wrong yet
there is

no

way to discount all of the potential possibilities.

I was reading "discount" as meaning to disregard as unimportant. Many
things cannot be shown to be impossible, but, in practice, we disregard
them as not being worthy of serious consideration.

In the grand scheme of things, my opinion is that belief in deity may

be the important thing some make it out to be. For me, it is a choice.
Not to necessarily explain things (as you mention) but just that my own
observations point in that direction. It's a glass half full or half
empty kind of thing (without the negative connotation of being "empty.")
It's merely that until I have compelling evidence to the contrary, I
believe in the possibility and acknowledge it. Obviously, not everyone
approaches certain issues the same way, which is their own choice to

Best wishes in the new year.

Figinn

Ok, but you seem like a sane, reasonable theist (deist?). Follow this
group for long and you'll see there are all kinds.

I agree there is no way to discount all possibilities. But the set of all
possible but unknowable things is quite large. What do you use as a

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:35:07 GMT, "Figinnn"
<Figgy_don't_care_anymore@whatever.com> posted to alt.atheism:

In the grand scheme of things, my opinion is that belief in deity may not

the important thing some make it out to be. For me, it is a choice. Not

necessarily explain things (as you mention) but just that my own
observations point in that direction. It's a glass half full or half

kind of thing (without the negative connotation of being "empty.") It's
merely that until I have compelling evidence to the contrary, I believe

the possibility and acknowledge it.

Then, to be both honest and sane, you have to believe in the
possibility of anything posited until you have evidence to the
contrary.