Mike,

>>So, you have no beliefs then?
>
>Thats pretty much the case. When someone asks me a question, I think about the question, I don't look in a book or the stars for the answer.

Well, then you "believe" in yourself as the 'final' arbiter of right/wrong, good/bad and so forth. That's existentialism at work.

You know, you've sort of been brainwashed by our culture and you really aren't even aware of it. Can't say I blame you for this as it was people in my generation that allowed it to happen.

Still, you need to get yourself exposed to other way of thinking I'd think.

Regardless, you do still have a belief system. You have faith in your own mind. That's not bad except when you stop there. You say that people ask you questions and you answer them. Here's one: Explain how your mind works at the most fundamental level.

You cannot. Neither can I. However, they do work. ALl we're doing is observing the results of the work, not the workings of the work, so to speak.

Explain to me how a blade of grass manages to be alive for example.

Can you?

No, you cannot. Neither can I apart from the notion that it is alive and its life and design has order ergo ther is someone who gave it that order. ie. god.

>
>Why? Well, since I don't have strong beliefs, being proved wrong is much easier to accept. It also makes me more open minded. For example, I do not believe in god, however, I do not believe there is no god. Big differnce. There really is no evidence either way. So I have no reason to make any judgment.

This is called 'agnosticism' (a-gnosis, where 'gnosis' is Greek for 'knowing' or 'knowledge'), roughly translated from Latin as 'ignoramous'. <g>

IMO, there's not much boasting room here, though I've certainly been guilty of exhibiting these traits at times.. < BG >

Additionally, I would assert that there is evidence. I've cited a few over the last few months, most recently giving you two specific web site to investigate.

Don't say that there's no evidence if you choose to not look at what is being offered. <g> This sounds like you've already made your mind up and are ignoring the evidence.

That is, You have pre-judged the outcome without respect for the facts. That's called 'prejudice' Mike and isn't an indication of an open mind.

>
>>What do you believe? If you believe anything then aren't they 'beliefs', which from your sentence above indicates you don't ..ehhhrr.. believe in.. <g>
>
>Lol, but you're twisting words. I didn't say I believed (iow, accepted as truth) that beliefs are bad. I said they are bad. Thats my opinion. I have ideas and opinions, but by no means beliefs. Why the differnce, well, belief means you accept it as completely true. I recall you mentioning earlier that nothing is 100%? Well said.

God is 100%. Man is not. <g>

You cannot assert something as true (opinion) if you did not so believe. The assertion is based upon a series of 'connections' you've made over the years that typically are constructs of things like prejudice, training, leaps of faith (rational or more likely not), ignorance, knowledge, and so forth.

My assertions that there are rational reasons to believe in the existence of God are (I would hope but am always wary of being 100% certain to keep myself honest) based in many years of examination of evidences (I've suggested some of these to you) and an attempt to challenge my own thought process. I do not just swallow new ideas whole and I'd recommend that you not do that either. Don't take my word on any of this; go out and find out for yourself.

Regardless, you do have a belief system. Perhaps you just call t somethign else but you can be assured you have one.

>
>>Kind of like asserting, "There are no absolutes!", which in and of itself is an absolute statement. <g>
>
>Yep, its also like saying "All generalizations are bad".

But that isn't saying that in order to be 'good' it must be a generalization. That's your error. There are absolutes. You just need to determine how to find them and what they are. Not knowing what they are (agnosticism - something you admit to) is not a proof for their non-existence.

IOW, you cannot say, "I don't know therefore I know." That is, you cannot say, "I don't know if god exists therefore he doesn't exist." That's a patently incorrect contradiction.

Besides.. Between the two choices it seems a far more reasonable route to take that He does exist. If you take that route and He does not (not true but for this example) then after this life you're no better or worse off than if you had taken the route that He did not exist.

OTOH, if you take the position that He does not exist and He does (He does - trust me) then you're going to have a problem...

This is irreduceably true. You will die some day. I will die some day. This issue will be dealt with and there is no avoiding it whatsoever. This is reality. Every single human wil face these issues and IMO it is far better to so do now and be prepared than later and not be prepared. I dare say it is absolutely the most important issue of one's life.


>
>>Methinks you're in an intellectual corner here and I'm interested in seeing how you get out of it. I'll bet you make a non-rational leap of faith to some other position..
>
>I'm not in any corner because I don't have to defend my blind faith or baseless beliefs. I'm here to learn, and to teach what I've learned.

Faith should never be blind. Where did you get that idea? Are you asserting that because someone has faith it is axiomatically 'blind'? Faith should IMO be intelligent and produce measurable results...

Speaking of measurable results.. We got about 11 inches of powder here yesterday. If this storm hits you folks it's going to be a doozy!