The great atheist questionnaire....

[derrick09]

Hello everyone this is for all the atheist regulars here. I'm wanting to use this thread more of as a learning tool for me and for anyone here who wants to learn more about the atheist side. I'm not wanting to debate per se, I just want to ask a few questions and get their side of the story. This also may be a good opportunity for atheists to learn some more about their side as well. So with other further waiting, here are the questions....

1. What are your favorite and or most convincing arguments and evidences for atheism? This can be for philosophical atheism, positive atheism, negative atheism, evidential atheism, whichever version is your favorite and or most convincing.


2. What are your favorite and or most convincing arguments and evidences for naturalism? This can be for philosophical naturalism, evidential naturalism, or any version of naturalism or philosophy that seeks to show that the natural realm is all there is (i.e. there is no supernatural)


3. What are your favorite and or most convincing arguments and evidences for macro evolution?

4. What are your favorite and or most convincing arguments and evidences against Christian theism?

5. What are your favorite and or most convincing arguments and evidences against generic theism and or deism?

6. How do you think the universe began? Do you think it is eternal or do you think it had a beginning (if you think it had a beginning what do you think is the best naturalistic theory or explanation for it)?

7.What are your favorite and or most convincing responses to common Christian theistic arguments? They are as follows...

Cosmological

Ontological

Transcendental

Moral

Design

Fine Tuneing

Archeological evidence that verifies people,places etc from the Bible

(any other argument that I haven't listed)

Resurrection of Christ

Question 8: What pro atheist books or materials would you recommend?

Question 9: What other arguments, evidences, responses, or comments would you like to add that may or may not applies to the above questions?

Anyway, that's about all the questions I have currently, think carefully for the answers and post a great response. I look forward to hearing from you all and for hearing your great responses. Thank you all for your time and take care.

PS...



Here are the best answers that I've come across thus far to these questions...

question 1: The problem of evil, The question of where did God come from, the impossibility of miracles, darwinian evolution, and quantum mechanics.

question 2: darwinian evolution, big bang, quantum mechanics, and lack of proof of the supernatural

question 3: dna, fossil record, human/chimp/ape close resemblances and genetic makeup, junk dna, ring species, and the fact that the majority of scientists adhere to darwinian evolution.

question 4: Lack of supernatural evidence (especially in modern recent times i.e. no credible video or photographic proof of the supernatural), evidence of similar competing religions ie mitharis, gnosticism, and the many alternative naturalistic theories to Christ's resurrection.

question 5: Many of the above answers that apply to the above questions can also work well in attempting to disprove deism, just lack of supernatural evidence or "god (s) activity"

question 6: The universe could easily be either eternal or seemingly self create itself from quantum particles, foam, activity, multi verse or from some other unknown or undiscovered natural law or mechanism.

question 7:

cosmological response: quantum mechanics or some other unknown undiscovered natural mechanism could easily refute the cosmological argument

ontological response: a god creating machine or a eternal group of gods may be a even greater idea or concept than a single creator God

transcendental response: Logical absolutes simply exist, they are axioms, they are conventions, they are uncaused, they are eternal, and there are different kinds of logic.

moral response: evidence from evolutionary psychology that may show that morals change over time and or products of a changing society (ies) and that there are no objective moral standards

design response: the design is merely an illusion,evidence for macro evolution, co option, and and it begs the question of who created God

fine tuneing response: other earth like planets that may house life, life on other planets like Mars, and evidence for abiogenesis (IE Stanley Miller experiment) show that life and the right conditions are not as fine tuned as one may think

archeological evidence response: Even though many people, places have been confirmed much still has not been confirmed, and no solid evidence for the supernatural events currently exists in archeology.

Resurrection of Christ response: popular alternative theories like the swoon theory, wrong tomb theory, conspiracy theory, and the myth theory.

question 8: Top books would be anything by Anthony Flew, Dawkins's greatest show on earth, God the failed hypothesis by Victor Stenger, and anything by Jean Paul Sarte

This is the best stuff I've come across thus far, let me know if you would like to elaborate, add, or contribute anything else. Thanks again.

[Silvertusk]

Here are the best answers that I've come accross thus far to these questions...

question 1: The problem of evil, The question of where did God come from, the impossibility of miracles, darwinian evolution, and quantam mechanics.

question 2: darwinian evolution, big bang, quantam mechanics, and lack of proof of the supernatural

question 3: dna, fossil record, human/chimp/ape close resembelences and genetic makeup, junk dna, ring species, and the fact that the majority of scientists adhere to darwinian evolution.

question 4: Lack of supernatural evidence (especially in modern recent times i.e. no credible video or photographic proof of the supernatural), evidence of similair competing religions ie mitharis, gnosticism, and the many alternative naturalistic theories to Christ's resurrection.

question 5: Many of the above answers that apply to the above questions can also work well in attempting to disprove deism, just lack of supernatural evidence or "god (s) activity"

question 6: The universe could easily be either eternal or seemingly self create itself from quantam particles, foam, activity, multiverse or from some other unknown or undiscovered natural law or mechanism.

question 7:

cosmological response: quantam mechanics or some other unknown undiscovered natural mechanism could easily refute the cosmological arguemtn

ontological response: a god creating machine or a eternal group of gods may be a even greater idea or concept than a single creator God

transcendental response: Logical absolutes simply exist, they are axioms, they are conventions, they are uncaused, they are eternal, and there are different kinds of logic.

moral response: evidence from evolutionary physchology that may show that morals change over time and or products of a changeing society (ies) and that there are no objective moral standards

design response: the design is merely an illusion,evidence for macro evolution, co option, and and it beggs the question of who created God

fine tunning response: other earth like planets that may house life, life on other planets like Mars, and evidence for abiogenesis (IE Stanley Miller expirment) show that life and the right conditions are not as fine tunned as one may think

archeological evidence response: Even though many people, places have been confirmed much still has not been confirmed, and no solid evidence for the supernatural events currently exists in archeology.

Resurrection of Christ response: popular alternative theories like the swoon theory, wrong tomb theory, conspiracy theory, and the myth theory.

question 8: Top books would be anything by Anthony Flew, Dawkins's greatest show on earth, God the failed hypothesis by Victor Stenger, and anything by Jean Paul Sarte

This is the best stuff I've come accross thus far, let me know if you would like to elaborade, add, or contribute anything else. Thanks again.

For one, why are you using a christian site for this - What possible aim are you hoping to achieve. If it is to take every athiestic arguement written here and disprove it then I look forward to that. If it is just a place to advertise atheism then I think you will find the moderators might have a word to say about that. Are you then going to look at the counter arguements to all the items you have suggested from the thiest point of view -- or you just assume that every concept of Theism is easily refuted. Have you even looked for example to the evidence against the swoon theory, wrong tomb theory etc for the resurection - I mean these are the most stupid and desperate alternatives athiests have come up with regards to the resurection. Read any Lee Strobel book, or William Craig - or Frank Morrison's who moved the stone.

Silvertusk.

[derrick09]

Hey, here is my purpose for this thread. And that is to gain more knowledge about the atheist side. I'm not wanting to promote atheism by any means. In fact as you can tell on my profile, I'm a OEC and a Christian as well. It's just there are some very knowledgeable atheists here and I would like to uncover the best they have to offer and compare sides in the future. I also plan on taking this same questionnaire to other sites in the future so I can get additional feedback. As for your recommendations for apologetics books, I currently own a decent collection of them, but I'm currently under the impression that many of them (especially Strobel, no offense) like to only offer the Christian side and not give a clear side by side comparison of both sides. And since I'm not having to hide under any glitz, glamor, and money like some of them seem to do, I'm going to try and get a good and as close to a nonbiased comparison of both sides as I possibly can, because if I only search the popular Christian side I'm only getting one side at the most and in some cases (especially with YEC material) get blantantly lied to at the very least. So in conclusion, this thread is only for knowledge and data gathering purposes only. This isn't ment to promote atheism nor is ment to be a thread for debate. But anyway, look foward to seeing some good responses to my questionnaire. Thanks ahead of time for the ones that choose to participate.

[Proinsias]

Hi Derrick

I don't see myself as atheistic but I will try to respond to your questions as someone who really doesn't believe in the traditional theistic sense soon.

Have you read The Miracle of Theism by J.L Mackie? I don't agree with all of it but it is by far the best defense of atheism I've come across, the author is hugely influenced by Hume but has some good points to make and does it rather nicely.

[hatsoff]

This is my post from another forum, but since they are sister threads, I figure it's okay to post my responses here, too...

1. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for atheism? It can be any type or definition of atheism such as implicit, esplicit, strong, weak, positive, practical, theoretical atheism. Use whichever one you feel is your favorite and or most convinceing form of atheism.

Atheism follows from observing that we have insufficient evidence for theism. Consider the question, "what is the most convincing argument against the existence of the Loch Ness monster?" The answer to your question is likely to be very similar.

2. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for naturalism? It can be any type or definition of naturalism such as metaphysical naturalism, methodological naturalism, scientific naturalism, ontological naturalism, or philosophical naturalism. Any version of naturalism or philosophy that seeks to show that the natural realm is all there is (i.e. there is no supernatural)

The same principle of parsimony applies to the question of whether or not we should be on the lookout for supernatural phenomena. Without some significant evidence, it's difficult to take supernatural claims seriously.

3. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for macro evolution?

My favorite has always been nested hierarchy, the same phylogenetic evidence used by Darwin himself. However, considering *all* the evidence is very important.

4. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences against Christian theism?

For those forms of Christianity which aren't downright incoherent, their chief problem is the lack of supporting evidence.

5. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences against generic theism and or deism?

Again, for those forms of theism/deism which are actually coherent, I'm obliged to reject them so long as they lack sufficient evidence.

6. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences against substance dualism or the existence of the soul?

Lack of evidence.

You may begin to notice a trend, here, in my answers to your questions.

7. How do you think the universe began? Do you think it is eternal or do you think it had a beginning (if you think it had a beginning what do you think is the best naturalistic theory or explanation for it)?

I have no idea.

8.What are your favorite and or most convinceing responses to common Christian theistic arguements? They are as follows...

Cosmological

Ontological

Transcendental

Moral

Design

Fine Tunning

These all have far too many problems to explore in this questionnaire. I will, however, say that I don't take any of these arguments seriously. They're all profoundly ridiculous, in my judgment.

Archeological evidence that verifies people,places etc from the Bible

(any other arguement that I haven't listed)

Resurrection of Christ

Christianity's central doctrine is the Resurrection, and I simply do not find ancient documents and/or archaeological discoveries to be strong enough evidence to demonstrate the occurrence of such a singular miracle. It's not that I find another particular hypothesis better; I don't, for instance, subscribe to the swoon hypothesis, the twin hypothesis, or something like that. I have insufficient information to determine precisely how it came to be that so many people believed Jesus had been raised from the dead. I can only say that, whatever the reason, we can safely assume that it wasn't because Jesus really was raised!

Question 9: What pro atheist books or materials would you recommend?

Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction.

Question 10: What other arguments, evidences, responses, or comments would you like to add that may or may not applies to the above questions?

"Lack of evidence" pretty much sums it up. The rest is just details.

[derrick09]

These are great responses, keep them comming

[Proinsias]

1. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for atheism? This can be for philosophical atheism, positive atheism, negetive atheism, evidential atheism, whichever version is your favorite and or most convinceing.

None have convinced me, they tend to be based on rejecting theistic arguments.

2. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for naturalism? This can be for philosophical naturalism, evidential naturalism, or any version of naturalism or philosophy that seeks to show that the natural realm is all there is (i.e. there is no supernatural)

The supernatural may be just 'natural'. Damn our tiny minds etc......

3. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for macro evolution?

Decent hypothesis that fits rather well.

4. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences against Christian theism?

It's more a lack of evidence for me. Although I'm generally skeptical of the miracles, I can allow them and still not be convinced of Christianity. If Jesus rose from the dead then he deserves some attention but I don't assume this means he is the one son of God come to save us. If the Bible predicts events it deserves attention but this does not mean it is the one true word of God.

5. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences against generic theism and or deism?

I may be one of those. If there is a God then people approach God in different ways, some use a focused approach. others a more generic one.

6. How do you think the universe began? Do you think it is eternal or do you think it had a beginning (if you think it had a beginning what do you think is the best naturalistic theory or explanation for it)?

No idea.

I'll leave no.7 as that could take the rest of my natural life, the Mackie book I mentioned above is by far the best I've come across - I think it's the only piece of atheistic literature I've read that wasn't condescending or preachy. His closing line is:

'Trust in God and keep your powder dry', understood as Braithwaite might understand it, may be good practical advice. But to trust in God to keep your powder dry is the height of folly.

[DannyM]

Proinsias,

'Ello mate! Listen, serious question. What would it take for you to believe in a creator and God as the creator? You are, if you'll allow me, an honest, searching being, yet you still hold to an illogical assumption...It seems to me that you are fighting tooth and nail in an attempt to swerve the obvious theistic conclusion...?? Now, my question to you is this: Are you *seriously* open to all enquiry? Or are you some kind of a vagibond, masqueurading as an open being but really atheistic at heart...?

Proinsias, please know that I, personally, find you open and honest. My beef is that, when faced with the "logic" and "rationale" of both sides, you appear to deny the rationale of the theistic side while you - almost by default - accept the atheistic position, which is actually, by the way, the most ILLOGICAL position of the two...

Plese clarify your seemingly non-rational position.

Danny

[hatsoff]

'Ello mate! Listen, serious question. What would it take for you to believe in a creator and God as the creator? You are, if you'll allow me, an honest, searching being, yet you still hold to an illogical assumption...It seems to me that you are fighting tooth and nail in an attempt to swerve the obvious theistic conclusion...?? Now, my question to you is this: Are you *seriously* open to all enquiry? Or are you some kind of a vagibond, masqueurading as an open being but really atheistic at heart...?

Proinsias, please know that I, personally, find you open and honest. My beef is that, when faced with the "logic" and "rationale" of both sides, you appear to deny the rationale of the theistic side while you - almost by default - accept the atheistic position, which is actually, by the way, the most ILLOGICAL position of the two...

Plese clarify your seemingly non-rational position.

Atheists obviously don't find atheism illogical, otherwise we wouldn't be atheists. If you could share your reasons for thinking that atheism is illogical, and if those turn out to be good reasons, then I for one will become a theist in a heartbeat. I'm fairly certain Proinsias will have the same reaction.

Perhaps you mean not to say that atheism is illogical, but rather that it is unsatisfying, because it leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions. I have issues with even that sort of criticism, but permitting it for a moment, we may observe that ignorance is often unavoidable, and does not constitute sufficient reason to embrace a particular proposition without evidence.

[touchingcloth]

I'll preface this by saying that the word atheist has several different meanings. I'm an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods - not in the sense that I believe that there is no god or gods. That might appear to be a subtle difference at first, but it's a very important one.

1. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for atheism? This can be for philosophical atheism, positive atheism, negetive atheism, evidential atheism, whichever version is your favorite and or most convinceing.

I don't really have any arguments for atheism, I'm an atheist because no arguments or evidences that I've had advanced to me for a particular god or gods has met my standards of evidence. The same applies for why I'm not a believer in alien visitors to earth - I have no favourite or convincing argument against such happenings, but none of the evidence or arguments put forward in favour of that position. The onus of proof is always on those claiming a certain position.

2. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for naturalism? This can be for philosophical naturalism, evidential naturalism, or any version of naturalism or philosophy that seeks to show that the natural realm is all there is (i.e. there is no supernatural)

Philosophical naturalism is garbage. My definition of philosophical naturalism would be "the assumption that matter, nature and what we can directly observe is all that there is". To me it's an untenable position as it is (or at least seems to be) utterly unfalsifiable, and goes beyond any evidence. I've heard philosophical/logical arguments put forward that purport to demonstrate that philosophical naturalism has to be true, but to be honest they just twist words, and assumptions and logic in the process.

Methodological naturalism, on the other hand, is very important and I believe that it should be rigorously applied to all scientific endeavours. My definition of methodological naturalism would be "the assumption that there are certain things that we can observe and/or come to know about, and that behave in what appears to be a deterministic manner". Probably not the best definition, but it will do. Under the umbrella of methodological naturalism, nature becomes defined as "all that we can know", whereas under philosophical naturalism, nature becomes defined as "all that there is" (for that reason philosophical naturalism makes a priori assumptions about what is natural). Methodological naturalism leaves alone those things that we cannot measure, or observe, or infer, etc., rather than excluding them a priori. The interesting thing about this is that god, or ghosts, or anything that is typically considered supernatural/paranormal could come to be considered "natural" if we could go about gaining knowledge of it in a methodological manner (end of rant now!).

3. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences for macro evolution?

Macro meaning species-species evolution? Probably transitional lines of fossils such as seen in land-dwelling mammal to whale evolution. Particularly compelling are fossil species/categories that have their age and location hypothesised in advance (e.g. we have fish fossils of X years old, and amphibian fossils of Z years old...we think that amphibians descend from fish therefore we expect to find species with common characteristics of both of Y years old), before being found in the correct strata.
This question seems a little misplaced in a questionnaire about atheism!

4. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences against Christian theism?

5. What are your favorite and or most convinceing arguements and evidences against generic theism and or deism?

Christian theism isn't a single corpus; there's a massive range of beliefs that could fairly be termed Christian theism. There's also no such thing as "generic theism" as the beliefs of all theists encompass an even greater range!
My answer to question one sums up why I don't have an argument against theism in general (although I may make comments/arguments against specific claims of some theists).

6. How do you think the universe began? Do you think it is eternal or do you think it had a beginning (if you think it had a beginning what do you think is the best naturalistic theory or explanation for it)?

I think the evidence for the universe having a beginning in the big bang is very compelling indeed. But the question of what caused the big bang (or indeed the question of whether this is even a valid question!) is far more open ended, and I couldn't fairly answer it without speaking outside of the evidence.
As for whether the universe is eternal (as in having a beginning, but carrying on forever), that's a question for cosmology. I think the consensus lies with the expansion of the universe continuing for vast amounts of time, possibly forever or possibly coming to a static halt at some point. In either case eventually the whole universe would become of a uniform heat (and perhaps density?) and it would still exist...but calling it eternal in that case would be a subjective call!

7.What are your favorite and or most convinceing responses to common Christian theistic arguements? They are as follows...

Cosmological

Ontological

Transcendental

Moral

Design

Fine Tunning

Archeological evidence that verifies people,places etc from the Bible

(any other arguement that I haven't listed)

Resurrection of Christ

I've not actually come across all of them in great depth, but I think that they are all ultimately flawed (if superficially plausible). The same goes for arguments against Christianity as a whole or any particular branch of theism...
The worst arguments for or against god are the ones that make a whole bunch of assumptions or just twist logic (e.g. theistic - everything that starts has a cause, and every cause has something that causes it. atheist - infinite regress denies a causal god).

Question 8: What pro atheist books or materials would you recommend?

I wouldn't recommend any overtly pro atheist material. If someone tells you that god definitely doesn't exist - fact, then I'd start reading between the lines of what they are saying!
My atheism stems out of (a lack of) evidence...personally I'd recommend any book that discusses science as a process, or the nature of evidence. Carl Sagan books are particularly good as he is calm, measured, and has an endless, infectious awe of the physical universe.

Question 9: What other arguments, evidences, responses, or comments would you like to add that may or may not applies to the above questions?

Cheers, derrick 09, it was fun.

[DannyM]

I'll preface this by saying that the word atheist has several different meanings. I'm an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods - not in the sense that I believe that there is no god or gods. That might appear to be a subtle difference at first, but it's a very important one.

TC, I do wish you'd stop deceiving yourself like this. If you lack any positive belief then you are not an atheist and are agnostic. Answer this question with a yes/no/don't know:

Does a god/gods exist?

Give me your honest answer, your honest belief.

[Proinsias]

Proinsias,

'Ello mate! Listen, serious question. What would it take for you to believe in a creator and God as the creator? You are, if you'll allow me, an honest, searching being, yet you still hold to an illogical assumption...It seems to me that you are fighting tooth and nail in an attempt to swerve the obvious theistic conclusion...?? Now, my question to you is this: Are you *seriously* open to all enquiry? Or are you some kind of a vagibond, masqueurading as an open being but really atheistic at heart...?

Danny

What would it take for me to believe in a creator and God as the creator?

Maybe an internal shift to the idea that 'stuff' must have been created.

I'm not trying to swerve the obvious theistic conclusion, I just don't see it as obvious.

My beef is that, when faced with the "logic" and "rationale" of both sides, you appear to deny the rationale of the theistic side while you - almost by default - accept the atheistic position, which is actually, by the way, the most ILLOGICAL position of the two...

I certainly do not accept the atheistic position, I've got hundreds of posts on the Atheist Toolbox and
many meatspace conversations to attest to that - atheists disagree with me as much as theists do. My main issue is applying 'logic' to the issue. Both atheists and theists are guilty of using 'logic' to prop up their ideas. To me when it comes to things like the existence of God then internal logic prevails, what is perfectly logical to one is not to another. When one is using logic to defend theism or atheism I don't think it has much to do with formal logic and an awful lot to do with what makes sense to them.

People have their own internal logic and what is logical to one is not to another. I can listen to the steps taken but I generally find them more emotive than logical.

It's not so much that I'm rejecting one side for the other, I'm just aware of a huge middle ground that both parties often seem to reject outright so they can concentrate on arguing about Christian theism vs 'Christian' atheism.

Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, Christianity are to me as important as physics, biology and chemistry. It's like going to a chemistry lecture and being told to dump biology, physics and don't even think about the social sciences as they're not even real science.

Am I seriously open to all inquiry? Probably not but I'm trying.

I'm really not atheistic at heart, but then I wouldn't say I'm theistic at heart either. If we take religion as a worldwide phenomenon I reckon I've got more interest in it than many here. The responses to other religions aside from Christianity are pretty much the same as I'd get on any atheist site - waste of time.

[DannyM]

I certainly do not accept the atheistic position, I've got hundreds of posts on the Atheist Toolbox and many meatspace conversations to attest to that - atheists disagree with me as much as theists do. My main issue is applying 'logic' to the issue. Both atheists and theists are guilty of using 'logic' to prop up their ideas. To me when it comes to things like the existence of God then internal logic prevails, what is perfectly logical to one is not to another. When one is using logic to defend theism or atheism I don't think it has much to do with formal logic and an awful lot to do with what makes sense to them. People have their own internal logic and what is logical to one is not to another. I can listen to the steps taken but I generally find them more emotive than logical. It's not so much that I'm rejecting one side for the other, I'm just aware of a huge middle ground that both parties often seem to reject outright so they can concentrate on arguing about Christian theism vs 'Christian' atheism. Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, Christianity are to me as important as physics, biology and chemistry. It's like going to a chemistry lecture and being told to dump biology, physics and don't even think about the social sciences as they're not even real science. Am I seriously open to all inquiry? Probably not but I'm trying. I'm really not atheistic at heart, but then I wouldn't say I'm theistic at heart either. If we take religion as a worldwide phenomenon I reckon I've got more interest in it than many here. The responses to other religions aside from Christianity are pretty much the same as I'd get on any atheist site - waste of time.

Okay. Thank you for your honesty. I agree that "logic" is being claimed by all sides, and it gets a little tiring, but the atheist is the one deceiving himself by claiming the logical ground. Hence the rather unedifying sight of the word logic being used by all and sundry.

Your analogy of religion and the sciences doesn't really make sense. You can believe in all the sciences but not all the religions. You can believe in biology, physics and anthropology, but you can't believe in Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. I suppose you can take good points from each if you are a 'floating voter,' but a theist has to have an ultimate belief. If you believe Jesus was resurrected, it would be absurd and, frankly, anti-climatical to then also "believe" in Hinduism.

[Proinsias]

Your analogy of religion and the sciences doesn't really make sense. You can believe in all the sciences but not all the religions. You can believe in biology, physics and anthropology, but you can't believe in Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. I suppose you can take good points from each if you are a 'floating voter,' but a theist has to have an ultimate belief. If you believe Jesus was resurrected, it would be absurd and, frankly, anti-climatical to then also "believe" in Hinduism.

Alan Watts is great favorite of mine in this field. Hinduism is certainly not against miracles. One can believe that Jesus rose from the dead and performed many miracles. To believe that some people are capable of seemingly supernatural feats and not be the one true son of God seems fine to me. One can believe that Jesus, the Buddha etc were enlightened beings but without subscribing to one school of thought that has developed around them.

If you've got a spare hour this might be worth a listen.

[Gman]

Okay. Thank you for your honesty. I agree that "logic" is being claimed by all sides, and it gets a little tiring, but the atheist is the one deceiving himself by claiming the logical ground. Hence the rather unedifying sight of the word logic being used by all and sundry.

Absolutely... I think this quote by Ankerberg sums it up well.

“When modern science assigns the origin of the universe and all life in it to pure random chance it does an incalculable disservice to science, because it "reduces scientific investigation not only to chaos but to sheer absurdity. Half of the scientific method is left impaled on the horns of chance. The classical scientific method consists of the marriage of induction and deduction, of the empirical and the rational. Attributing instrumental causal power to chance vitiates deduction and the rational. It is manifest irrationality, which is not only bad philosophy but horrible science as well. Perhaps the attributing of instrumental power to chance is the most serious error made in modern science and cosmology. ... If left unchallenged and uncorrected, it will lead science into nonsense.... Magic and logic are not compatible bedfellows. Once something is thought to come from nothing, something has to give. What gives is logic." - Darwin's leap of faith.