Jonathan H. B. Lobl

If they had something, they would be waving it around for all to see. Ask for proof. What do they do? Quote Scripture. When that fails to impress, they pull out Pascal's wager. Then they say that belief is a choice. You know how the game is played. Silly arguments. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull **." There's never anything new. Just the same old tired arguments. And of course, threats of damnation. Tell them where they can stuff their threats -- and they cry persecution. They will insult you with Scripture, then tell you that your problem is with God. Same old game. Same old, same old. I can't do it any more. The steam is gone from my tank.

Christian and Jewish archaeologists have been diligent in their search for evidence. What have they found? Nothing.

Atheism is concerned only with Theism. There is no uniformity of belief or opinion on any other topic.

Yes.

1. This is true. Perhaps God is not all powerful. Or does not care what I believe. Simple logic suggests that the god that gave us brains, would expect us to use them. 2. There is ample evidence that similar claims, made in the past, are true. Have any claims made on behalf of God's existence, been verified? No.

Alright. Now that I have a grasp of what you are looking for. The first thing to know about the Biblical God is that he's a trickster. He created the world old. If Adam had cut down a tree, he would have found rings in the tree showing a false age. If Adam had dug into the ground, he would have found fossils of extinct species. That is how a Young Earth Creationist explains away the evidence. When we have an all powerful creator god, who lies and deceives, looking for evidence is a fool's errand. The same all powerful creator god also hides and obscures evidence. There is, for instance, no evidence at all that the Exodus happened. More of God's deception. Of course, false history is part of the game. Ancient records from China and India, that don't mention the great flood. Like it never happened. You're looking for facts? In the Bible? That can be verified?

Staying out of it, is how a once good board descends into madness.

I am. Another preacher, come to save our souls.

Even when there are verifiable facts, like the outcome of an election -- the surveys often get it wrong. When the survey is based on a subjective label -- with ambiguity and bias -- the results lack meaning. Even worse when the goal is click bait. Or partisan. Or fund raising.

Evidence? From the Bible? The gap is in external reality. Where are we going with this?

Consider the source. Were you expecting fairness?

If you actually care -- everything that happens in the Hebrew Scriptures -- everything -- has a date on the Jewish calendar. If memory serves, this is the year 5778. Have a care. You are opening a huge can of worms.

Is that really the question? What I want? In the end, what is -- is. What is not, is not. Wanting is irrelevant. Not wanting is irrelevant.

Their analysis in this case might be correct. I don't trust it. Over the years, I have also met Atheists. Some of them were white males. I have also met Atheists who were not male. Or not white. Or not white and not male. There are many factors that can throw a survey off. I am not in a position to say that these findings are false. I don't trust it.

It is possible to demonstrate, by objective, verifiable evidence, that wolves exist. This is not the case with God.

I don't trust it.

An assertion put forth without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Thank you. Happy Passover to you.

I don't know who said it. "When we talk to God, it's called prayer. When God talks to us, it's called schizophrenia."

Since you raise the question, the answer is yes. Mother is many things, exemplified by the ancient goddesses. Consider Sekhmet, the lion headed goddess of Egypt. She is a healing deity. She is also a blood thirsty terror. To her children, she is a fierce guardian. To others, she is death incarnate. Of course, the male gods are also complicated. (Present tense. The old gods still have followings.)

You thought the Agnostic Way lacked substance.

Invisible assumptions are a body of belief that we accept without realizing it. That is, the assumptions are invisible to us. Like an iceberg. We can see the tip of it with our minds easily. The body of thought is submerged in our minds. We don't realize that this mass of idea is there, beneath the surface. It is invisible. This can be subtle or gross. How do we describe the Universe? If we say, "Creation" -- that is one set of assumptions about God. If we say, "Existence" -- we are not making those assumptions. How do we describe our planet? Is it "God's footstool"? "Is it "God's Green Earth"? Or an expression of natural forces? Maybe "Mother Earth"? "Third Rock from the Sun"? "The Big Blue Marble"? "Home"? It all evokes something different. Different ideas. Different associations. A different belief structure. What are the stars? Are they distant suns? Or are they the Host of Heaven? If you like, I can go on. The point is -- I think what we call things does matter. Let's magnify things. Let's make some big invisible assumptions. What is the purpose of religion? To get our souls into Heaven. Look at all the invisible assumptions that we just made. We have made statements of belief about the purpose of religion; Heaven; Hell; souls; etc. If we actually dissect all the assumptions we just made -- we could end up with a major work of theology. All based on invisible assumptions. We have, for instance, asserted that we have souls -- that we want to get our souls into Heaven. Is Heaven a place? Like Texas? That we want to get into? What do we actually know about Heaven? Or souls? How do we know this? How do we think that we know any of this? Based on what? When we actually examine what we think we know -- what do we really know? How do we know it?

Thank you for understanding. You really nailed this one.

Ideas vary: Nature; The Universe; One; Unity behind Existence; Ocean of Life; Mystery, Foundation of our Being; The Force: Nature's God (Spinoza of Amsterdam) ; Singularity --- not everything is anthropomorphic. In Buddhism there is "Bodhi Mind" -- a mental field from which everything rises. Not God as such. A mind field. Depending on inclination and belief, you could say "Supreme Being". If you do chose those words, you are saying more than you might wish. Or showing that you have not thought deeply about the matter in a disciplined manner. In other words, invisible assumptions.

Our words structure our thoughts. Sometimes, our choice of words betrays what our thinking really is.