This alone speaks volumes. Christian theology has nothing to do with divine revelation - if such a thing even exists - and everything to do with their own psychopathology.

The end result is that billions have to spend eternity in hell because they have lousy self-esteem.

This depends on the hypothesis in question, of course. The credibility of a "distant" God is relatively unaffected by lack of evidence, and thus some believers remain with belief even when there is no plain, obvious, certain support for belief. I'm with you all the way, though, on the next step of this tired discourse: by what reason should we believe, then?

Well, I'll buy that as a technicality. On the other hand, approaching the problem with a clean slate, there's really no reason even to introduce the idea of deity. The problem is, we never get to start with a clean slate. There are always those about us who try to foist the burden of proof onto us; it's somehow incumbent upon us to show that the god they believe in isn't real. In that case, no evidence for God really is good evidence that he doesn't exist.

This may be off topic, but I for one like hearing opinions that are different from mine. Its boring, not to mention closed minded, to spend all your time reading things you agree with. Intellectual growth depends on hearing opposing ideas, to either learn to refute or learn from them.

I too, enjoy hearing opinions that are different than mine. However, the things I'm reading from John are nothing new and quite frankly, insulting to anyone whose worldview is based upon reason and rationality. I mean, there's no way to have a discussion when this is the argument that one has to work with:

John said:

How can we really argue rationally about a being that created the universe Who for reasons unknown to us, cannot be observed, tested or experimented at the present time.

My question to John is, "If the being that created the universe cannot be observed, tested or experimented, what evidence is there that this "being" even exists? Something that can't be observed, tested or experimented is the equivalent of something that doesn't exist.

See Ebon Musings: One More Burning Bush for the "God-sense" rebuttal.

Paul S "If "troll" isn't the appropriate handle, I'm open to suggestions."
On the CB I call him "bandit", on account of the Firebird and the screaming Sally Field in the passenger seat. He really should stop and let her out.

staceyjw "Intellectual growth depends on hearing opposing ideas, to either learn to refute or learn from them."
Thanks to arguments with creationists on other sites I, for one, have ended up reading more about evolution than I ever intended to. Brutal and uncaring it may be, it's pretty cool. I also learned that debate (and from that, any hope at consensus) is impossible if the opposing parties can't agree on the facts.

"This may be off topic, but I for one like hearing opinions that are different from mine. Its boring, not to mention closed minded, to spend all your time reading things you agree with. Intellectual growth depends on hearing opposing ideas, to either learn to refute or learn from them."

Which is why this Christian comes here.

You are except that "belief" in my case is belief born from knowledge, and impossible to contradict. Nothing, absolutely nothing on this site or anywhere I know of contradicts anything I know. If anything, the knowledge obtained from this site merely reinforces what I already know. Don't get me wrong, as far as knowledge of God and His purpose. I am still a babe on milk - I have so much to learn. I would like nothing better than to learn mouth to mouth, that time may come soon.

David: I don't think most believers claim that God is entirely incomprehensible, but rather, claim there are incomprehensible aspects to his nature. (e.g. We cannot fully plot out the results of all omniscient calculations, but we know he "loves" us.)

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. [-mikespeir]

This depends on the hypothesis in question, of course. The credibility of a "distant" God is relatively unaffected by lack of evidence, and thus some believers remain with belief even when there is no plain, obvious, certain support for belief. I'm with you all the way, though, on the next step of this tired discourse: by what reason should we believe, then?

Paul S: John isn't trying to start controversy, nor is he throwing flames anywhere, nor is he offering irrelevant or off-topic comments, but only offering what he sees as the truth because he thinks it should at the very least be offered here, since it's not promoted highly. Hence I think "troll" is an inaccurate description of him. And yes, I think he has consistently given the same "inferences are just inferences" sentiment over and over again - this is the inevitable result of a belief that is immune to flat-out contradiction. (Am I right, John?)

"God sent his only son in human form to be brutally crucified to save us? How is this NOT blood sacrifice"

Perhaps from your view I can see why you would think this. From my view, we are Christs' Body, and we currently reside in the grave.

This is going to drift off topic, so I'll end it with the above statement.

I have just started a Christian blog on "blogspot" and I will link this atheist site when I get it up and running. I have learned a lot here. Especially "The Jesus Puzzle," which basically supports all that I know. One qualifier is, I can't begin blogging untill I receive a send, which can only be done by Him.