>>RS:Has mankind failed and suffered so much because
>> there is no God, or because God is simply standing back and letting us make
>> our mistakes for us? Either interpretation can fit the evidence, and
neither
>> can be logically proven.
>
>GG:I agree with you. I don't think that the Christian position can be
>logically shown to be true. I do think that objections to it can be
>logically defended against, however. But I also admit that atheism looks
>like it can stand within itself fairly consistently.
>
>I'd like you to understand that some people treat Christianity as not only
>a faith, but also less than that--as a kind of ideology the truth of which
>they must convince people of. I *hope* that I've come to the realization
>that it can't be done that way; human effort just isn't sufficient.
>
>It might be my own lack of sympathy and imagination that blinds me to some
>of the "glories" of atheism. I feel that there are a whole spectrum of
>human aspirations which cannot be satisfied by atheism, thus much of human
>life seems to be vanity and a "striving after wind" (a line from
>Ecclesiastes, Jim Bell's favorite book :-)
That's just because that's the way you're built -- that's the way your
mind works. I say potato...
There's nothing wrong with two people looking at the same evidence and
interpreting it in two totally different ways. Indeed, I think that
makes life a lot more interesting. I can't say with absolute certainty
that I'm right and you're wrong. Of course, I feel that I'm right, and
you feel that you're right, but that's just the way we irrational,
emotional human beings are, so it's not worth fretting over. <g>
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.