@shinyblurry But I found the real struggle was to objectively define truth. Any foundational truth, really. What is beauty? What is altruism? What is truth itself? 7 billion subjective perspectives does not equal one objective one.

Well, as you say, our understanding is limited, and we may neveer truly figure it out, but from my pespective, if anything could ever be seen as objectively true, that would have to be science. Compare science to religion, there are thousands of religions, all claiming to see some deeper truth in the universe, but there is just one science. There is no such thing as "Japanese science" or "American Science" or "Middle eastern science" The first law of thermodynamics isnt different in Germany og Guatamala, and if we ever make contact with an alien race on the other side of the universe capable of science, they will have discovered the same law. Theyll also discover that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared and so forth. Compare that to religion: As soon as two tribes are separated by a mountain or a lake, their religious "truths" will start to diverge.

Or, maybe we're wrong, maybe, despite being independently confirmed over and over in different parts of the world and even in the farthest stretches of the universe, the laws of physics and logically sound facts derived from science is all wrong, maybe there is some other, unknown objective truth waiting to be discovered. Still one thing seems glaringly obvious: Christianity seems to be as far from an objective truth as one can get. Even Christians can't agree on it. There are something like 30 thousand recognized branches of Christianity, and when taken at the level of an individual, the picture is even worse. Almost every christian seems to have a different idea about whats really true about Christianity.

So, if I had to hedge my bets on how we can find objective truths: Science.

Believe it or not, I can personally relate to how you feel about it. I used to feel mostly the same way as someone who was previously agnostic to the idea of whether there is a supreme being or not, a Creator of the Universe. I also know why you feel you have come to a very sound conclusion about the idea, which is that you see no evidence of God or spirit. If you believe matter is all there is, it makes the existence of a supernatural Creator rather far fetched doesn't it?

Now you talk about logic, but even if you don't believe in the supernatural, there is by default no logical reason why either scenerio is more likely than the other, if you go by the initial premise that everything is equally unlikely. Why should there be something rather than nothing? That is the great question on Stephan Hawkings mind, even though he believes he can get the entire Universe from quantum foam.

These were questions I wrestled with as an agnostic. For one, I knew the limitations of our subjective perceptions. The limitations of human knowledge. It's a big Universe out there and we haven't even left our solar system yet. There are many possibilities even within the traditional secular understanding. What if life emerged on another planet far, far earlier? What would an intelligence evolving over billions of years look like? Was there a power that ruled this entire Universe? Those were just wonderings. But I found the real struggle was to objectively define truth. Any foundational truth, really. What is beauty? What is altruism? What is truth itself? 7 billion subjective perspectives does not equal one objective one. There is no way to get outside the Universe and look into it, and there is no way to go back to before it was created. These are simply the differences between relative and absolute truth.

These questions are much bigger than atheism, which is why I was agnostic. I didn't see any way I could write God off and be objective, but at the time I didn't see much reason to believe in Him either. You apparently feel differently. I'm interested to hear your logical reasons for not believing in God. A revelation that I had when I was thinking about these things was that I had entangled the concept of God with all of the religions of the world. To truly be objective, you have to look past religion, and consider the problem on just a probability basis. What is the likelyhood of any of it? You can explain it away with this and this and this happened, there was this explosion and then rocks came together and then amoebas appeared and then apes and then me, tada. You have to put all of that aside, as well as the size of the Universe, and just consider Stephan Hawkins question. Why is there something rather than nothing?

In any case, you don't see any evidence for a spirit so you are dealing with an entirely different set of parameters. For there to be a spirit you would have to deal with the fact that everything you know is in some way, wrong. You just naturally are not going to look in that direction.

The thing about God is, He isn't going to push Himself into your life. You think it's just a matter of evidence, a matter of discovering something; the truth is that to know God is not a right, it is a priviledge. You could spend 10,000 lifetimes dedicated to searching for God and you would never find Him until that moment when He chose to reveal Himself to you.

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Sometimes He has mercy on atheists, like this man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4lgvZ5MCZ4

But biblically, He tells us to seek Him out. If you refuse to do that then you don't have any excuses. You've heard the truth and we are accountable to what we know. You don't feel a need for God right now but that's why we're here. God is patient, but we aren't guaranteed a single day on this planet. If you died today you would face judgement, but His mercy keeps you here that you will repent and turn from sin. So don't take your life for granted because that isn't anything we control. I say this out of love. God gives a lot of grace, and to know Jesus Christ is to know peace, and joy. It is to understand the meaning of truth, to have love, and to be free. It is to be made new. My prayer is that you, and others here, will come to know that for yourselves.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
@shinyblurry said: Fletch, you're even denial about the definition of atheism,which is the denial of any deity according to the dictionary.
Thats not how most atheists define atheism. Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in any theistic claim. There is a crucial difference. I dont "deny" any deity, that sentence doesnt even make sense to me as an atheist, any more than the sentence "The denial of any leprechaun".
You (@shinyblurry) believe in God
I dont.
Thats all there is to it.
"Not believing in god" wasnt really a conscious or deliberate decision on my part, its just "the way I am". But when i examine that position rationally and deliberately I find that it does also make more sense than believing there is a god. Can a beliver really, REALLY say the same, I wonder?

^You dear sir, are bat shit insane. More taxes equals a more well-educated workforce? Ive got a news flash for you: OUR TAXES ARE THE HIGHEST THEY'VE EVER BEEN! OUR EDUCATION IS ARGUABLY THE WORST IT'S EVER BEEN!

And, please, I need you to cite examples and references of those "other industrialized nations" that have paid so much more into their educational systems than we have and are reaping the benefits. And, if you could make that reference "peer-evaluated" and "politically unbiased" that would be awesome, though I'm sure you cannot. Essentially what I'm saying is: I don't believe you. Show me that Utopian government success story, and I'll show you a lie.

I have a good friend of a friend who is a teacher at a charter school here in LA. He's an Anarchist (not the Molotov Cocktail type), so he's extremely left. He even agrees with me that the Department of Education is a joke and needs to be repealed and dissolved. He agrees that it hurts the children's education. And, he's a far leftist with a subjective perspective into that morass.

I will agree with you somewhere, though. I will agree we need to stop paying into the military industrial complex. One-hundred percent! But, the answer isn't to take money away and move it somewhere else. We just need to stop our government from taking so much. Period!