Is there, or is there not a God?

[John Dolva]

I think it is one of the saddest ironies regarding humanity's entry into the third millenium, that men and women have in my opinion allowed a dynamic of blending 'God and religion' to some extent to be in some cases a single entity. Adam's question is one that has occupied the hearts and minds of arguably, the tidal wave of humanity throughout the epoch of time.

Logic dictates that the answer or, the attempt to answer his question to not be answered with an agenda or anything that is other than a honest answer to a direct question.

I have my own personal outlook, generally similar in outlook to millions of people who have a belief in God but are personally appalled at how the current mindlessness in America has thrown God into politics, which, for those with more than a passing knowledge of world history is fraught with peril for everyone, on the other hand the Constitution (rightly) stipulates that 'freedom of religion' is a uninalienable right, recognizing that you cannot have a democratic society while not protecting the freedoms and rights that so obviously are inherent to those who live in that same democratic society, so the bar can and does throughout history 'swing both way's,'

Even deeply religious people are 'somewhat acquiescent' with the statement that eliminating the line between 'separation of church and state' is not exactly a 'great idea.' Even some deeply religious people would agree that some of the greatest crimes in world history have been 'committed in the name of God.'

As an attempt to answer Adam's question without advocating or suggesting anything in particular, philosophy in some respects provides a less contentious method of delving into the subject free of the encumberances so characteristic of what some with a religious faith background call the 'culture war.'

I myself believe there is a book that many have advocated as a philosophical approach to the subject entitled 'Man's Search for Meaning' by Victor Frankl.

The book is a story in itself, Victor Frankl from what I remember (I read the book ten years ago) was a Jewish doctor who was thrown into a Nazi prison camp and had thousands of pages of his research confiscated, he then began to study how his fellow prisoners dealt with the issue of survival in relation to their faith, his conclusion after the war was over (which is the basic theme of the book) was that people who believed in God were 'more likely' to survive than those who didn't.

I personally am not attracted to controversy, although some of my posts on the forum might seem to suggest otherwise. But I definitely detest the dynamics so prevelant in the US of A of inserting religion into the current political climate, I think in many way's Dennis Hopper was right when he said 'the 90's will make the 60's look like the 50's' he was just off by a decade. Good Night and Good Luck

The Good thing about god is that he exists independently of the religion. His personal salvation is on offer to all, directly, with no intermediary. These are just stuff that happens on earth and has done so for millinnea and will continue to do so. Everyone faces their own personal armageddon. There's no need to mystify any portion of the bible. It's very simple. On earth, the people we become as children of god, the christian who ultimately would face the firing squad rather than succumbing to evil. Evil being violence. These people form a core conscience for all humanity. I see King, and the Kennedys, Ghandi, and so many others remembered and forgotten through all human history, flawed humans as they were as contributors to this conscience. And that is something that those who seek to destroy their efforts can never overcome. be happy.

_____________________________

I often ponder on why so many members who profess to be openminded are so within a fixed field.

Personally I consider the position of agnostic in relation to the existence or non existence of God to be the only sane alternative to gnosticism. Though, I suppose the atheist would argue that their position is the gnostic vision. So there are those who know that God does not exist, and then there are those who are not sure ... and in the far corner, braying for attention are the 'godists', obviously a deluded bunch.

Asked to prove their knowledge, their unassailable position devolves to the status of 'under debate'.

So, obviously the gnostic is a theist, then there are the agnostics and the atheists.

And in the realm of the debatable, an atheist is a 'bigot'. Claiming a knowledge that cannot exist.

Ipso facto: "the position of agnostic in relation to the existence or non existence of God to be the only sane alternative to gnosticism"