lumberjohn
Active Member
Rather than raging about the atheist "agenda," why not just articulate your question more clearly as several of us have reasonably requested? If I were to ask you "Deal or no deal?" how would you respond? You would probably have no idea because you aren't even sure what I'm talking about. You might understand the terms in isolation, but in the context of this question there is much that is unclear. Likewise, people have very different understandings of what is meant by "God." For some, it is a passive "first cause" that can be demonstrated by logic alone. For others, it is a more active being that intervenes in the physical universe and is therefore, at least in theory, detectable through empirical means. For still others, it is an emergent quality of the universe, such as for those who say "God is nature" or "God is love." Also, what do you mean by "better?" Perhaps you are talking about whether belief in God would improve your social standing or make you happier. Perhaps you are asking whether such belief is more intellectually defensible than the alternatives. I think it is perfectly reasonable to delve a bit deeper into your question so that we can formulate an appropriate response.
It is pretty common to attempt to reach agreement on the definitions of key terms before beginning a discussion. It need not suggest any nefarious ulterior motive.
Last edited:
Upvote
0