NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Good discussion.

I would just have to comment that the rejection of a God is a belief. But of course that underscores the confusion, or at least spectrum, of what one might constitue as God. I think that Dawkins and others prefer to nail the religions and the belief of personal gods. Ones that have some involvement with you personally.

I believe in god, but I couldn't begin to tell you much about him/her/it. I'd say that some sort of entity may be responsible. When we look to science, there are big questions that still remain unanswered. Something from nothing. Life from non-life. The tiniest speck of particles that acts differently based on what we do. The splendor of the universe and the ability of think about the splendor of our universe. Consciousness. UFO's (ha) On and on. And while we think we can explain these things(at least some of them), the explanation and it's impication always gets pushed deeper and deeper.

So while a personal god might not exist, it doesn't preclude the possibility of some creator. In turn, why reject the potential for such a creator?? The hard core atheists just reject it. I'm not sure why although I think it is because of the religious favor of such a personal god. I think this notion enrages them enough to counter with the anti-religion, anti-personal god, notion. Which is, as far as I can see it, a belief. Agnostacism seems to be the only "I don't know" option. Maybe there is and maybe there is not. Atheists don't take this position.

But then again, it depends on what you mean by "god". Are we talking Jesus or some kind of original "force"?

<blockquote data-quote="TClaeys" data-source="post: 61851" data-attributes="member: 487">Good discussion. &nbsp;I would just have to comment that the rejection of a God is a belief. But of course that underscores the confusion, or at least spectrum, of what one might constitue as God. I think that Dawkins and others prefer to nail the religions and the belief of personal gods. Ones that have some involvement with you personally. &nbsp;I believe in god, but I couldn&#039;t begin to tell you much about him/her/it. I&#039;d say that some sort of entity may be responsible. When we look to science, there are big questions that still remain unanswered. Something from nothing. Life from non-life. The tiniest speck of particles that acts differently based on what we do. The splendor of the universe and the ability of think about the splendor of our universe. Consciousness. UFO&#039;s (ha) On and on. And while we think we can explain these things(at least some of them), the explanation and it&#039;s impication always gets pushed deeper and deeper.&nbsp;So while a personal god might not exist, it doesn&#039;t preclude the possibility of some creator. In turn, why reject the potential for such a creator?? The hard core atheists just reject it. I&#039;m not sure why although I think it is because of the religious favor of such a personal god. I think this notion enrages them enough to counter with the anti-religion, anti-personal god, notion. Which is, as far as I can see it, a belief. Agnostacism seems to be the only &quot;I don&#039;t know&quot; option. Maybe there is and maybe there is not. Atheists don&#039;t take this position. &nbsp;But then again, it depends on what you mean by &quot;god&quot;. Are we talking Jesus or some kind of original &quot;force&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TClaeys, post: 61851, member: 487"] Good discussion. I would just have to comment that the rejection of a God is a belief. But of course that underscores the confusion, or at least spectrum, of what one might constitue as God. I think that Dawkins and others prefer to nail the religions and the belief of personal gods. Ones that have some involvement with you personally. I believe in god, but I couldn't begin to tell you much about him/her/it. I'd say that some sort of entity may be responsible. When we look to science, there are big questions that still remain unanswered. Something from nothing. Life from non-life. The tiniest speck of particles that acts differently based on what we do. The splendor of the universe and the ability of think about the splendor of our universe. Consciousness. UFO's (ha) On and on. And while we think we can explain these things(at least some of them), the explanation and it's impication always gets pushed deeper and deeper. So while a personal god might not exist, it doesn't preclude the possibility of some creator. In turn, why reject the potential for such a creator?? The hard core atheists just reject it. I'm not sure why although I think it is because of the religious favor of such a personal god. I think this notion enrages them enough to counter with the anti-religion, anti-personal god, notion. Which is, as far as I can see it, a belief. Agnostacism seems to be the only "I don't know" option. Maybe there is and maybe there is not. Atheists don't take this position. But then again, it depends on what you mean by "god". Are we talking Jesus or some kind of original "force"? [/QUOTE]

Verification