Happy Atheist Forum

Today I received a message on Facebook from a friend that I knew in YWAM (she's French, so her English isn't perfect):

QuoteGirl !!! I've been thinking of you lately? How are you?? I remembered clearly the day in india when we preached and you found the courage to share what happened to you and how God was restoring you. I admired so much what you did that day !!! I've seen on your status that you were not so crazy about all of this anymore. And i wanted to share with you that christians will disappoint you, the church is far for being perfect, and that is why we need a perfect savior, and his grace and mercy. And also some people discribe God unaccurately and tell people He does things that He would never do. He is a loving father and this year I've started to undertand that He can't hurt us and His heart is broken when His loved creation is hurt. Anyway I've had hard times too, probably not as hard as you, but God can do the impossible if we let him do his work in us. Let me give you this piece of his word that has spoken to me so much "the Lord appeared from old to me, saying, yes, i have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness have i drawn you and continued my faithfulness to you" it goes on in jeremiah 31. I hope this will bless you as much as it blessed me. I pray you will rediscover God's love toward his princesses !!! And remember he is a loving father, and when we come back to him he is already waiting arms open wide, tears of joy in his eyes. Never mad or angry. Oh what a beautiful day when he will wipe away our tears ! I hope we can keep in touch via facebook or emails. Thank you for the impact you had on me, i love remembering india !!!

I wrote her back:

QuoteHi Priscille, thanks for writing to me. It's been a long time! I hope that things are going well for you and that you're enjoying life. Are you still working as a nurse? I’m going to college right now and I plan to be a registered nurse when I’m done. I’m in my 2nd year now and I still have about 3 years to go. My classes are challenging, especially the sciences, but I’m enjoying every minute of it and I’m really excited to get out and work someday.

I appreciate your concern about my attitude toward God and religion in general. Please understand that it was not a rash decision on my part, or the result of some sort of misfortune or hurt that I endured. My becoming an atheist was the result of a couple of years of research and struggle to accept things that went completely against what I’d always been taught. In the end, I knew I couldn’t deny the truth. I knew there was no evidence for the God we preached. As I read the Bible, and I mean really read it, I saw that God was really nothing more than an evil dictator. Time and time again in the Old Testament, the reader can see the sorts of things that God is capable of: things like genocide, hate, jealous rage, and many others. I think Richard Dawkins said it best when he described God as, “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” The passage in 2 Kings 2:23-24 is only one example of this.

What makes things worse is that religion is responsible for many of the greatest evil acts in history. People are incredibly cruel to each other and use their holy books to justify their actions. The Crusades, conflicts in the Middle East, violence in India, and the current conflicts in Sudan all have a basis in religion. God commands the destruction of nonbelieversâ€"with all the different religions in which he is attributed to saying this, one would think he wants all of humanity dead, although he tried that once (Genesis 6-7).

Now, in the New Testament, God appears to do a complete turnaround almost overnight although he still shows some tendencies toward his violent nature (Acts 5:1-10 is one example). God is suddenly cast in a totally different light, full of love and forgiveness. Yet the Bible claims that he is the same “yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Either the Bible is wrong, or God is suffering from a severe personality disorder, or there is no god at all and we have simply created him from our own imagination. From the research and readings I have done, I’m inclined to go with the first and third options.

I hope this illustrates a little better why I no longer believe in Christianity or in God. I am still able to lead a full and happy life without God, and I think I am actually happier now than I was when I was a believer, although that may have nothing to do with it. I am the same person you knew in Florida and India, except now I am free of superstition.

If you would like a better picture of the research I did, I would suggest reading the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman, Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, and Godless by Dan Barker. I don’t know if all of those books are available in France, but if they are, they are well worth the read. Those are just a few of the books I’ve read over the past 3 or 4 years.

Thanks again for your message. I think of our time in India every day and I always remember it fondly. I still have the scarf you made me tooâ€"thanks for sending it to me!

Thoughts? I've never really gone this in-depth before. Since I recently came out to my parents, I feel a little stronger to share my experiences with theists. This part is still relatively new to me.

Can I borrow this? I have quite a few friends in need...  

Feel free

To Chimera

  I enjoyed your letter, as most here should know by now I am a non Christian Theist who has a great dislike for Christian theists some would actually call it a hatred for them.  While I rejected Christianity I held onto my belief in a God and simply rejected the notion that the Christian God represents any real God.  When I first became a church going Christian I read the bible and immediately began finding contradictions and inconsistencies and lies.  I ended up writing a book called (The Unholy Church) which was based upon these contradictions and inconsistencies and lies.

  Even after writing the book I still considered myself Christian and tried to get Christians to understand that blindly following the bible or church doctrine was not the way to worship God.  That while Jesus was a Rabbi and teacher of God and that his public teachings before the Jews should be followed he was not and is not God nor was he the son of God in the terms of being born by a virgin.  But to be accepted as being Christian one must hold these false beliefs and I finally determined that any religious belief that believes that only it knows the true will of a God, or are the only true followers of a God and has the divine authority to impose those beliefs upon others, are invalid beliefs.

  If you are Atheist you should feel free to challenge Christians who come to you expounding that only they know the divine truth of a God.  That only they know the truth of salvation.  There are many web sites created by Atheists documenting the lies, contradictions and inconsistencies of the Bible.  I have a site called “bible,lies” where I post stuff from my book and debates from the internet groups, I challenge Christian Theists from the view point of a Theist.  The easiest way to counter Christians is by using the lies, contradictions and inconsistencies of their own bible against them.

  How can they know the infallible truths of a God when the so called infallible book of a God is so fallible.  Their bible is the foundation of their authority and power so it is the bible that must be challenged and invalidated.  I believe you did well in your letter and expressed yourself quite well.
 

Thanks Mark, I appreciate your comments.

Chimera:

Do you mind if I use your letter on my website? I think it is powerful. Most Christians have very few (if any) examples of a person coming to this decision by way of logic and reason. I would like to use both letters to show the discourse. Yours is a rare look (and a poignant one) into how someone comes to this conclusion.

If you would rather I not use it, no problem. But, wow, I don't think Christians know how this happens.

Thanks, Chimera!

John

I'm fine with that. I'd like a link to the site when you do post it.

Thanks Chimera, that's great!

I recently became an Atheist coming from a very devout Mormon family, I have yet to have an experience like yours, but I assume that I will sometime possibly in the near future.  I may have to steal some of your very well laid out points if ever I find myself in that situation. I came to be an Atheist through lots of research and study like yourself, and after being on the religious side of  debate for so long, I don't know how well I'd stand up on my first religious debate as an Atheist

To rb24

  The main thing is to stay to the provable facts.  The inconsistencies and contradictions of the bible or church doctrine.  The contradictions between Christianity as it is practiced and the actual public teachings of Jesus before the Jews.  And my personal choice is simply saying that only God or Gods can prove the existence of Gods, that no book and no priesthood and no church can prove the existence of a God only a God may do that.
 

Upon seeing your letter I immediately thought that this is the perfect place to pose a question which has been on my mind for years: why does the existence of evil rule out the existence of God? You quote instances in which God has committed acts you would define as evil, and seem to come to the conclusion that this entails that God cannot exist. I have always thought this is a little like saying that Hitler and the Nazi Party was evil therefore Hitler did not exist. Clearly the Argument From Evil is as flawed as the argument proposing that Hitler does not exist, and as such I must enquire as to why you think this is a justification for atheism? I assume that you have various other reasons for disbelief in a deity, but as you think the Argument From Evil is a justification I would be interested to see why you adhere to the Argument.

To Dagda

  I am not sure who your post is directed at but if you do not mind I will take a pot shot at it.  From my point of view being a Theist the recorded evils of the Jewish and Christian Gods simply invalidate the name, image of persona of their Godhood beliefs.  But does not invalidate God or Gods.

An Atheist point of view, I will take a crack at as well criticizing the Christian Godhood beliefs based upon the evils of said God does not acknowledge the existence of a God it simply states that even is such a God exists then such a God would be unworthy of ones love and worship.  It also shows the hypocrisy of Christians in claiming a loving, forgiving and merciful God when their own bible shows their God to be a vicious blood thirsty murderer.
 

Quote from: "Dagda"Upon seeing your letter I immediately thought that this is the perfect place to pose a question which has been on my mind for years: why does the existence of evil rule out the existence of God? You quote instances in which God has committed acts you would define as evil, and seem to come to the conclusion that this entails that God cannot exist. I have always thought this is a little like saying that Hitler and the Nazi Party was evil therefore Hitler did not exist. Clearly the Argument From Evil is as flawed as the argument proposing that Hitler does not exist, and as such I must enquire as to why you think this is a justification for atheism? I assume that you have various other reasons for disbelief in a deity, but as you think the Argument From Evil is a justification I would be interested to see why you adhere to the Argument.

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

Quote from: "Wikipedia"In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the question of whether evil exists and, if so, why.The question particularly arises in religions that propose the existence of a deity who is omnibenevolent while simultaneously also being omnipotent, and omniscient.[1][2] Attempts to resolve the question under these contexts have historically been one of the prime concerns of theodicy.

The argument from evil does not invalidate just any old God or gods, but casts doubt on the possibility of deity or deities that are both All Good and All Powerful and All Knowing.  Those three characteristics seem to be the corner stone of the major monotheistic religions.

 i.e. "My God only wants good things to happen and abhors bad things when they happen" to which the skeptic responds "Well, doesn't a God with the power to create an entire plane of existence also have the power to abolish evil if it found evil to be, well, bad?"

This leads the skeptic to believe that a religion, like Christianity, cannot be describing an entity (God) that exists as a being that is All Good and All Powerful and All Knowing should be able to get rid of anything that offends it without much trouble (being All Powerful and everything).  Its not too much trouble to see where the "since bad things happen, an All Powerful, All Good, All Knowing God who abhors bad and evil things probably doesn't exist" rationale of the skeptic comes from.


Or I don't think it should be too much trouble to see the rationale....

To me, I think the whole problem of evil question comes down to Epicurus, of whom most of us are familiar:

QuoteIs God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

It is mind-boggling to me to see people like the Pope living in grand palaces, surrounded by the riches of the world, and then see children in Haiti (for example) suffering and dying because of poverty and malnutrition. It's not right, it's not just, and it's not fair.

I think it is quite clear that the Argument From Evil is not a terribly powerful argument. Even if we assume that it eliminates the possibility of a good God (debatable), this does not disprove a deity. Believers could join a pagan movement where there are evil and good gods, or perhaps a nature religion where god is just god, neither good or evil. In other words, anyone who bases their disbelief in a deity on the Argument From Evil (AFE) has not thought the whole idea through very well. Even if the Christian God was the only option, it is not very difficult to avoid the pitfall presented by the AFE.

There may be another reason why people so readily embrace the AFE despite its flaws; to avoid the tragedy of the human condition (not that I am saying anyone on this forum is guilty of this illusion). For instance, you refer to the calamity in Haiti. While it is true that the earthquake was an act of God, so to speak, the humanitarian disaster afterward was an act of man. French and American foreign policy in the last 200 years have left Haiti with little proper infrastructure and unimaginable poverty, so when the tremors began, the government was unable to respond. Compare this to Cuba which has suffered similar natural disasters which have barely registered in the international press because of the quick response from Havana. Even today the international recovery effort is hindered by the American military’s control of Haitian airspace-e.g. forcing various aid charities to re-route the air packages through the Dominican Rep. hence adding several days to the journey time of such essentials as food, water and surgical tools. The AFE seems to provide a wonderful opportunity to blame the disaster on an evil or non-existent God, rather than to admit that the disaster is down to human error/evil. Basically, there is a feeling of shock when confronted with natural disasters such as Haiti, and it is far easier to blame God/religion and push them out of your life than to do the same with world leadership. This may sound confusing, but human psychology tends to be thus. Life is short, ugly and brutal. We are an insignificant species on an insignificant rock orbiting an insignificant sun on the edge of an insignificant galaxy. Life is pointless; any decision we make today, no matter how large, will eventually turn to dust and be forgotten as the ages come and go. I believe this fact does not mean that God cannot exist, but instead convinces me that he must appear to exist, for without that belief in a higher power, darkness would consume us all.  

In conclusion, I believe that the AFE is no more convincing than Pascal’s Wager, and does not prove anything significant. As such, the argument should be dropped from the arsenal of anyone convinced of the non-existence of a godhead.

Quote from: "Dagda"Upon seeing your letter I immediately thought that this is the perfect place to pose a question which has been on my mind for years: why does the existence of evil rule out the existence of God? You quote instances in which God has committed acts you would define as evil, and seem to come to the conclusion that this entails that God cannot exist.

I know you weren't talking to me, but if it's ok I'd like to say that this is an excellent question.
For me, the sticking point is that God defines evil for man and then proceeds to act in an evil manner. (According to the bible of course)
It's not that I don't believe in the christian God because evil exists, it's that I don't believe in the christian God, because he tells me what evil is and then does it, over and over again.
So my options are, believe in the evil hypocritical god of the bible or look elsewhere.

Quote from: "Zyva"

Quote from: "Dagda"Upon seeing your letter I immediately thought that this is the perfect place to pose a question which has been on my mind for years: why does the existence of evil rule out the existence of God? You quote instances in which God has committed acts you would define as evil, and seem to come to the conclusion that this entails that God cannot exist.

I know you weren't talking to me, but if it's ok I'd like to say that this is an excellent question.
For me, the sticking point is that God defines evil for man and then proceeds to act in an evil manner. (According to the bible of course)
It's not that I don't believe in the christian God because evil exists, it's that I don't believe in the christian God, because he tells me what evil is and then does it, over and over again.
So my options are, believe in the evil hypocritical god of the bible or look elsewhere.

Ah, but my problem is that people seem to use it to deny the existence of ALL deities. Anyway, many of the people who use this argument attempt to show that God is evil by quoting passages from the Bible. This seems to be brought about by an ignorance of biblical studies (obviously I am not expecting everyone to be a biblical scholar, but no-one should base an argument around something of which they only have a passing knowledge). We know that the Old Testament (where much of the blood lust comes in) was edited during and after the war between Israel and Judea (a real war) so that the Jews (Judea) came out smelling of roses. This meant altering certain passages so that God became far more mean toward the Israelites. As far as we can tell, the original passages where far more New Testament-style God (less blood and guts). As many secularists are so fond of saying, the Bible cannot be used to prove the existence of God, but neither can it be used to prove His non-existence; the Bible may be the Word of God, but it was written by the Hand of Man, so we must look outside the Bible to settle the God debate.

Quote from: "Dagda"Ah, but my problem is that people seem to use it to deny the existence of ALL deities. Anyway, many of the people who use this argument attempt to show that God is evil by quoting passages from the Bible. This seems to be brought about by an ignorance of biblical studies (obviously I am not expecting everyone to be a biblical scholar, but no-one should base an argument around something of which they only have a passing knowledge). We know that the Old Testament (where much of the blood lust comes in) was edited during and after the war between Israel and Judea (a real war) so that the Jews (Judea) came out smelling of roses. This meant altering certain passages so that God became far more mean toward the Israelites. As far as we can tell, the original passages where far more New Testament-style God (less blood and guts).

As many secularists are so fond of saying, the Bible cannot be used to prove the existence of God, but neither can it be used to prove His non-existence; the Bible may be the Word of God, but it was written by the Hand of Man, so we must look outside the Bible to settle the God debate.

  To Dagda

  If the bible cannot prove the existence of a God then there is no need to use the bible to disprove the existence of a God.  The primary reason I use the bible is to counter claims made by Christians.  The Bible cannot have been guided by the hand of a divine being who is all knowing, and all perfect.  It is to flawed, contradictory and inconsistent.  You said "the bible may be the word of God, but it was written by the hand of man".  Which makes it worthless as an instrument for knowing the true will of a God.  

  As for looking outside of the Bible to settle the God debate, this would accomplish little.  Only a God or Gods can give evidence or proofs that would settle such a debate.  Do I believe in a God yes, does this mean that the God I believe in exists for anyone else, No.  God or Gods can only exist where God or Gods have given evidence and proofs of their existence.  Until that happens they might as well not exist whether they exist or not.

 

Quote from: "Dagda"Ah, but my problem is that people seem to use it to deny the existence of ALL deities.

So, using the atrocities in the bible to deny the biblical god is one thing and using the atrocities in the bible to deny any god or gods is another. Is that what you're saying? If it is, I get that and I would have to agree. I personally don't have a problem with there being a god. I just don't believe in the existence of the biblical god.

QuoteAnyway, many of the people who use this argument attempt to show that God is evil by quoting passages from the Bible. This seems to be brought about by an ignorance of biblical studies (obviously I am not expecting everyone to be a biblical scholar, but no-one should base an argument around something of which they only have a passing knowledge).

Point taken. I'm certainly not a biblical scholar. ;)  The fact remains that the biblical, albeit OT view of god, is that god is evil. Why would anyone quote passages from any other book to show that God is evil when the bible is such a plentiful source?

QuoteWe know that the Old Testament (where much of the blood lust comes in) was edited during and after the war between Israel and Judea (a real war) so that the Jews (Judea) came out smelling of roses. This meant altering certain passages so that God became far more mean toward the Israelites. As far as we can tell, the original passages where far more New Testament-style God (less blood and guts).

I'd like more information about the editing of the Old Testament by the Jewish scribes and the original passages. Could you point me in a direction to start? I prefer books to websites and I'd appreciate your suggestions greatly!

QuoteAs many secularists are so fond of saying, the Bible cannot be used to prove the existence of God, but neither can it be used to prove His non-existence; the Bible may be the Word of God, but it was written by the Hand of Man, so we must look outside the Bible to settle the God debate.

If you have to look outside of the bible to find the proof of existence of the christian God, why bother with the bible at all?
Where would you look, outside of the bible to settle the God debate?

Zyva, my first suggestion on Jewish editing would be The Moses Legacy. Graham Philips can make huge leaps with his history sometimes, but this book is one of his better ones. There are actually some very well researched chapters, and from what I can remember (I have since lost the book or I would have provided more info on the Israel-Judea war) it has a good bibliography, so at worse it will be a starting place for further research. Sean Martin’s ‘The Gnostics’ is also a good book for further information about early Christian customs and biblical alterations, but doesn’t go beyond the 2nd century BCE. Also, keep an eye on the History Channel and eventually a programme will come on which will concentrate on Biblical evidence. These do have a habit of concentrating on the NT for some reason, but still interesting. Be warned, once you have read a few books on the subject, the T.V. programmes tend to just reiterate your knowledge, but add more pictures. Makes me wonder why I bother paying for Documentaries in my Sky package.

Where would I settle the God debate? I would like to see more scientific study going into miracles and possessions. These would appear to the the easiest way to test deities. People genuinely believe they have witnessed miracles/been possessed so I think even if God is not found the study would probably come across some interesting facts about the human psyche. I could also go into why I am a believer, which may or may not be relevant, but I suspect no-one would be particularly interested in why I think God/s is/are necessary.

To Dagda

  Let’s start with Demon possession, I am not sure how one can prove an actual possession, I saw the movie the forth kind, a month or so ago, supposedly it was about UFO abductions in Alaska.  But what I came away with after watching the movie is that it had nothing to do with UFO’s.  What they encountered was a rash of Demon Possessions.  If the translations were correct, then they were dealing with Demons not ET’s.

  If we assume that the footage and testimony were real, and the events really happened then all one could say is that Demons are real, but Demons being real does not prove that a Universal God is real.  There could be a spiritual or energy realm that coexists with the physical realm and they over lap every so often and these over laps allow possessions to occur but even if one could prove the reality of Demon possessions, this does not prove the existence of a Universal God.

  To tell you the truth, if the fourth kind used actual film, and accurate translations, then I would say it is the best evidence ever gathered to validate possessions.  If one could prove Ghosts, spirits poltergeists actually exist and are real, then that is all you would have done, proving the existence of these things only prove they exist it does nothing to prove the existence of a Universal God.

  My family has a long history of interaction with what we call guardian angels.  Every member of my family has been in one or more situations singly or in groups where we should have suffered serious injuries and or death and came out of them smelling like a rose.  Now even if these guardian angels could be proven to exist, and be proven to have intervened on our behalf.  

  What does this mean in regards to the existence of a Universal God.  Absolutely nothing, if spiritual beings do exist that intercede on the behalf of humans to help safe guard them, then all you have proven is their existence, but their existence does not prove the existence of a Universal God.

  A elementary school bombing where the children reported seeing angels and dead relatives who helped them to exit the building after the detonation.  If what the children reported seeing was real it would give an indication that something beyond our physical awareness exists but it would give no evidence to support a Universal God concept.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cokeville_ ... age_crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cokeville_Elementary_School_hostage_crisis)

 

To Dagda, thank you for the reading suggestions!!!! I'll get started on that. I've seen lot's of programs on the History Channel, but like you said they mostly stick to the NT. "The Naked Archeologist" is one of my favorites even though I don't always catch it.

QuoteWhere would I settle the God debate? I would like to see more scientific study going into miracles and possessions. These would appear to the the easiest way to test deities. People genuinely believe they have witnessed miracles/been possessed so I think even if God is not found the study would probably come across some interesting facts about the human psyche. I could also go into why I am a believer, which may or may not be relevant, but I suspect no-one would be particularly interested in why I think God/s is/are necessary.

 I've attended several exorcisms by several different religions.I could write a book about it. I've yet to see a person who was in any way possessed, so I don't believe in possession or demons for that matter.
As far as miracles go, I just don't know, how would somebody go about studying a miracle?  I'm sure that many have tried and if I were interested enough to look it up I'm sure I could find some scientific studies of some miracles.
I tend to lean towards almost all of them being coincidence. Weird coincidence no doubt, but coincidence nonetheless.

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"To tell you the truth, if the fourth kind used actual film, and accurate translations, then I would say it is the best evidence ever gathered to validate possessions.  

It didn't, The Fourth Kind was a movie and everything in it was pretend. There was no actual footage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Kind

All very interesting points. Mark, I see what you mean. Even if demons turned out to be real spiritual entities, then that just means demons are real spiritual entities. However, science is as yet not advanced enough to search for a Universal God, and as such the only way that our present equipment could possibly try and explore the God Debate in any substantial way would be to attempt to study such phenomenon which have been associated with God. Although this is not perfect, it could in some way bring us closer to settling the argument (that is assuming that it can be settled) by proving/disproving that which is traditionally seen as only a step away from the God-head.

Zyva, although I have never attended an exorcism, I do suspect that most of it is down to self-suggestion. For instance, if someone believes that they are in a haunted house then noises that they would normally associate with the wind or the creaking of an old house become obvious manifestations of the paranormal. However, even if all ghost/demon infestations can be directly linked to this self-suggestion, this warrants an investigation in itself so that we may further explore the power of the human mind. In other words, even if all supernatural events can be explained through science, thus does not mean they should not be investigated. And if it turns out that there is more to the paranormal than delusion and coincidence, then that would be one of the most exiting scientific discoveries in the history of humanity-on par with the discovery of extra-terrestrial life

Damn about the (fourth Kind) I just read an article on it, Movies should not claim they are based upon real events when they are not.  Dagda I agree with you that Science should really begin in-depth research into the human mind and it's capabilities.  If someone claims to be possessed then put them in a hospital and find out what the problem is, if science cannot figure it out, bring in a priest if the priest fixes it, then figure out how it was fixed.  Could the priest be a latent telepath or empathic.

  I heard a scientist talking about UFO’s one time and he said that he had no idea whether they existed or not, whether they were nothing more then a mental delusion or not, but that there was so much circumstantial evidence that science as a whole should consider doing in-depth research into the subject to find out what the UFO phenomenon actually is.  Instead of just sitting back and saying it’s delusional and making no effort to show that, that is really the answer.

  The same with extrasensory perception, there are mountains of circumstantial evidence to support the belief that some people have psychic abilities but no real in-depth scientific studies to delve into it to prove it or disprove it.  The U.S. and Russian Governments have been using Remote Viewers for decades and while some information about them and their abilities have reached the public arena, no solid scientific research has been done to study them and their abilities.

  The same with spirits or ghosts, having some ex plumbers stumbling around in a weekly tv show is not my idea of a scientific effort.  If science could actually figure out how to establish contact with a spirit or ghost, it would be interesting to find out if they are nothing then a psychic memory imprinted on the spatial background.  Or are they spiritual beings fully aware and if contacted could they communicate with the researchers.  Or are they restricted in what they can say or do?

  I do believe that there exists a spiritual realm that co-exists with the physical realm, and believe that there are spiritual beings that also co-exists with the physical realm.  And if science actually made a effort to advance and understand paranormal and psychic abilities in humans, I think that this spiritual realm could easily be proven to exist.  While this advancement in human abilities might allow one to contact a God would a God even be aware of the attempt to contact him/her/it/they.  

  Or would this God react they way we would to a mosquito landing on our ear lobe by simply smashing it.  While I believe that God or Gods exist I do not believe that Allah, Jehovah or God/Jesus exists, these Gods are simply imaginary Gods created my men.  If God or Gods exist their power, energy and being may be so massive that a human may be no bigger than an electron circling an atom in relation to them.  I personally believe in a Universal God, Meaning that the Universe itself is the physical embodiment of God and that everything that exists is simply a microscopic piece of God.

  And before the Atheists start in, nothing I have stated can be proven, nor would I even attempt to claim that anything I have stated is fact or anywhere near being fact, what I have said is simply my personal thoughts on these subjects.
 

Quote from: "Dagda"Upon seeing your letter I immediately thought that this is the perfect place to pose a question which has been on my mind for years: why does the existence of evil rule out the existence of God? You quote instances in which God has committed acts you would define as evil, and seem to come to the conclusion that this entails that God cannot exist. I have always thought this is a little like saying that Hitler and the Nazi Party was evil therefore Hitler did not exist. Clearly the Argument From Evil is as flawed as the argument proposing that Hitler does not exist, and as such I must enquire as to why you think this is a justification for atheism? I assume that you have various other reasons for disbelief in a deity, but as you think the Argument From Evil is a justification I would be interested to see why you adhere to the Argument.

I think the simple answer is the human mind, Humans created the bible, the human mind created god. People either choose to be good or bad. a human can show a bahaviour of greed and self interest, this does not help other fellow humans and could be construd as evil. I could go on but you then have to discuss morals, which again is a human issue and not a divne one.

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"The same with extrasensory perception, there are mountains of circumstantial evidence to support the belief that some people have psychic abilities but no real in-depth scientific studies to delve into it to prove it or disprove it.  The U.S. and Russian Governments have been using Remote Viewers for decades and while some information about them and their abilities have reached the public arena, no solid scientific research has been done to study them and their abilities.

   Google. Although not perfect, it is as close as science gets to the study of the power of the human mind.

Isn't there a research outfit with a $1 million "prize" for anybody that can pass the tests they've devised for proving any kind of super powers (telepathy, telekinesis, psychokinesis, pyrokinesis, etc).  One would believe that if these abilities existed at least one person would take a crack at the cash.  

I occasionally read about/hear about it but I never remember the name of the outfit.

Rand I think. The Ganzfeld is testing nothing which could be described as ‘superpower’, but if the human mind is capable of influencing external events the without the use of the body.

Quote from: "Dagda"Rand I think. The Ganzfeld is testing nothing which could be described as ‘superpower’, but if the human mind is capable of influencing external events the without the use of the body.

Oh, I found this.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Its a long semi-boring read but it deals with the subject of determining whether the human mind can influence external events.  I haven't made my way through too much the information.

Click on the "Procedures" button at the top-center of the page to read about the experiment.  The "Data Access" button takes you to a selection of pages where you can view some results.