Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Albatross wrote:Yay!

I think it's nice to have a reasonable discussion on these matters. Flamewars on this subject are often very interesting.

Fixed that for you.

Da Boss wrote:Any documentary or data I've looked at has not pointed towards pornography generally being a healthy profession for those involved in it. There are, of course, exceptions, but I think if you're telling yourself it's all hunky dory and there's no ethical issue you're deluding yourself.

Another aspect to porn I find disturbing is that over time it's become more extreme and degrading. Various theories exist as to why that is, but I find myself looking at what's out there wondering how the hell anyone could be aroused by that rubbish, and wondering what effect it would have on the views that young men have about women.

I'm not religious, and I'm pretty sure I'm not a prude either, but I do think porn is an industry that has a large and distressing dark side.

Every industry does. Politics, nursing homes, and even the video game industry. *flashes back to being a game tester at Sega* Especially the game industry...

Relapse wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Does he suck d***k for porn? Because that's not addiction, addiction is the broken end of a glass pipe in your mouth because you have convulsions if you don't. Besides, why the heck don't you have blocking software on your computer? Is it so hard to turn off all images so you don't have to play google-seppuku whenever you download a site?

He just couldn't stop looking at the stuff and acting on it. Another aquaintence had a divorce because of porn, since he, in his own words, "Couldn't give up his girls" . His wife chucked him and moved on to a good life while he just got more pathetic with the stuff. That in my mind is addiction, when someone can't give something up and their life goes to Hell in a handbasket because of it.

Wow... Just wow...

First of all, I respectfully disagree with your concept of addiction being "Hell in a hand basket". Some addictions are not bad:
I am addicted to reading my girls bedtime stories.
I am addicted to OCD-ishly cleaning up my house.
I am addicted to smoking.

OK, that last one was kinda bad...

My point is that while addiction can be pretty serious, it is not a totally devastating in most cases...
That segways me to my next rant.

Your friends wife is a B.I.T.C.H. (Being Insensitive To Confused Husband). Or in this case, ex-husband. Now, I need to remind you that I have only the context you gave me...
But I find it appalling that she did this to her husband, a man that, if I believe your little rant, was in desperate need of marriage counseling, and maybe even psychiatric help.
Let me put just that quote right here:

Relapse wrote:His wife chucked him and moved on to a good life while he just got more pathetic with the stuff.

Feth, divorce in the US, nay, THE WORLD has gotten out of hand... And they say gay people are "ruining the institution of marriage"

Manchu wrote:
What do you think of this statement: "logic requires inference and perhaps assumption but not faith"?

I would agree; especially in the sense that faith is a determiner of action, whereas logic need not be.

mattyrm wrote:Im not getting into having a go at religious people anymore, i dont have any issue with 99% of them, but i have to have my say when you say it requires "faith" not to believe in God (Him/her/it)

Go ahead.

mattyrm wrote:
Im sick of religious people calling me a faith-head because it makes them feel better.

Thisd is an unfair conclusion to the below. I wouldn't not insult you by calling you a faith-head, but if you have a strong beleive in atheism then you have a religious preference, one based on faith.

mattyrm wrote:
You dont have to have faith if you are a none believer. Faith by DEFINITION is.

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

You misunderstand what you quote. Note the 'or' in the bold quote. Proof is hard to come by, after all we can convict and condemn in law courts on 'without reasonable doubt' few cases are truly proven. 'Proof' is something best left to physics and maths and the other hard sciences. Material evidence can be contested but by and large is present for most major religions.

mattyrm wrote:
Everything i believe with regards to the origin of life is based on logical proof and material evidence. Not faith. You need faith for God, you dont need faith for things that have scientific evidence to back them up.

And where do your opinions of the origin of life disprove God? Your faith tells you to disavow God from the equation.
I don't believe in 'intellegent design', because its not necessary its just creationism explained. It is even in keeping with Biblical accounts when literalism is dealt with (I will address Manchu on this after), evolution as Darwin espoused it was not intended as a platform for atheism. It is not proof of atheism. Evolution has been hijacked by atheists unwittingly supported by poor quality church leaders who cannot properly interpret the Bible and are closed to new thinking.

The idea that it is a question of science vs God is a fallacy and what it really means is: I can argue a faith point (atheism) with greater gusto and in places where religion is not welcome by disguising it as science. Thus my religious beliefs can be put forward as scientific methodology and I can bash (other) faiths by 'name dropping' the body of scientific knowledge as support for my beliefs.

Espound evolution as often as you want, most Christians have no problem with that, and a growing number agree with you. However its not proof of the non existence of God. To adhere to athieism you need faith.

mattyrm wrote:
But i have no faith. And no religion. Lack of belief in something cannot by definition be a religion and im sick to the back teeth of hearing it.

Sorry you have a skewed logic. For your logic to be complete it must make sense both ways.

If faith is required to believe in something without proof then by logical consequence it is required to confirm the non-existence of something without proof.

Now a 'lack of belief' is different from 'decision of unbelief'. You can have a lack of belief in God by ignoring the issue, chimpanzees have as far as we can tell a 'lack of belief' because they have never expressed one. This is not to call all Chimpanzees atheists, or in fact any of them. That is a lack of thought not a conscious decision to disbelieve.

Let us narrow this down further:

Lack of belief in something cannot by definition be a religion

So what is the correlation between belief and religion?

If something you don't believe in is not a religion: Then is Hinduism not a religion, within my paradigm, because I rejected it? No its still a religion.
If I do beleive in something does this count it as religion: Then are UFO's a religion if I claim to beleive in them. No its not a religion, some cults might include UFO's in the muythology, but UFO belif as and of itself is not a religion.

Clearly neither end of the arguement holds water.

The truth is a persons faith depends on their religious beliefs for or against. Atheism is a faith choice by logical definition.

Sorry if you are sick to the back teeth of hearing it. You need not be, what we say hold logic, if you want to progress with your faith as science first address the logic. you will find that science is itself neutral, many scientists are religious people. The fields are not mutually exclusive. However we need to challenge this, the idea that atheism = science is a dangerous dogma and is used time and again to attack religion. What you see as a harmless opinion is in fact a loaded weapon used to attack religious people time and again.
This is not suprising, atheism as expressed under such horrors as communism is perhaps the most bloodthirsty and unbending religion of them all.

No I am not accusing you of agreeing with that, but just as the errors in the churches that led to such horrors as the Spnish Inquisiton needed addressing, this fallacy of science vs faith also needs addressing.

My Dear Dogma,

What do you think of this syllogism?

"All land animals that exist in nature have been encountered by humans. Unicorns have not been encountered by humans. Unicorns do not exist in nature."

Its based on a valid inference, so I agree with the stated conclusion.

Of course, the obvious definitional caveats apply; particularly with respect to the meaning of nature. Perhaps 'on Earth' is an appropriate substitute.

Yes, you are right to point out that a premise can always be questioned. My point was merely that no faith was required to disbelieve in the existence of Unicorns.

Manchu wrote:@JEB: I read your post, understand its context, and believe that I have already addressed it sufficiently. If you think otherwise, please extrapolate what point you feel I have either misinterpreted or misunderstood

You are making the assumption that my belief in God is supported by the idea that there is no evidence to deny His existence. If you notice I never once state that is my argument at all. I was merely referencing a point that Matt's definition of Faith applied to him as well. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Albatross wrote:Aren't you referring to faith (small 'f'), opposed to Faith (big 'F') here? That is to say, 'faith' to mean 'trust'? It takes 'trust' to believe the word of qualified scientists, who have poured thousands upon thousands of man(and woman)hours collectively into understanding certain things? People who can demonstrate WHY and HOW gravity, evolution, or photosynthesis works EARN our trust. That isn't the same thing as 'Faith', as I'm sure most people on here would admit.

Agreed wholly, which is why I used such an extreme example. You will notice I do not always use the same capitalization for the word throughout my comments. It is a subtle method of distinction and definition for me. I was merely pointing out that Matt's definition of faith was far to simplistic for the sake of conversation, as it is a multi-faceted idea that delves into the realm of the philosophical and is thus hard to tie down.

Albatross wrote:Also, Atheism is not a monolithic group of identical viewpoints. 'Atheism' literally means 'without theism', and that can cover a whole range of things from agnosticism to Anti-theism. It requires no faith on my part to be non-theistic. If proof that god/s exist became available, then I would be the first to say 'wow, awesome!' - but there isn't any, so I personally can't say that. Do I think god exists? No. Is my position on this unmoving? No. Because that would require Faith, and that 'ain't me babe.

That is fine, but that doesn't mean that belief in Atheism is without Faith, however latent. You obviously care about this to a degree, and give some thought to it, which then separates it from simple uncaring.

Da Boss wrote:I wonder is doubt easier. I wonder what easier even means, in this context.

Trust me, a maintenance of one's Faith is very taxing. When it seems the whole world in one calamitous choir bellows, "Somnium!", it becomes very difficult. But such is the nature of life, and there are many things in this world to steel my resolve throughout the ebb and flow of time.

Da Boss wrote:But yes, to me, it is more valuable. It's how I construct my worldview, by trying to question everything, worry at everything, consider as many other points of view as I can. I'm not always good at it, as sometimes I can be pretty closed-minded on surprising topics, but I try to correct myself. I think that's valuable.

We are all closed-mended at times, whether we admit it or not. At least you can admit it. In that you should take comfort. You do not presume that you are wholly above fallacy, and thus you can take comfort in some level of humility.

Da Boss wrote:JEB, I was sort of putting forward an argument for what some people call atheism but is really a form of agnosticism that is 99% sure. But that 1% of doubt is important, and is what stops it being a faith issue. Though I don't disagree that even the most dedicated agnostic has moments of faith in their lives. It's unavoidable. I'd consider them to be significantly different to religious faith.

That is why I point out that the faith is latent. You may not know it, but it is there. This is delving into the realm of philosophy where there will be no solid agreement.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Manchu wrote:@JEB: I read your post, understand its context, and believe that I have already addressed it sufficiently. If you think otherwise, please extrapolate what point you feel I have either misinterpreted or misunderstood

You are making the assumption that my belief in God is supported by the idea that there is no evidence to deny His existence. If you notice I never once state that is my argument at all. I was merely referencing a point that Matt's definition of Faith applied to him as well. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Yes, and I thought that it was fairly obvious that disbelief in God does rely on logical proof, however weak, as I just demonstrated regarding disbelief in unicorns.

Manchu wrote:Yes, you are right to point out that a premise can always be questioned. My point was merely that no faith was required to disbelieve in the existence of Unicorns.

Yes, I agree. Faith cannot exist in the presence of evidence of any sort.

Orlanth wrote:Furthermore I can understand how it is not to believe in God, and can experience what the skeptic does, but the opposite is seldom true. I am in a better position than a skeptic, the skeptic guesses at what they don't have experience of, I know what I have seen and heard. In this I am lucky, many other have a strong faith but have not been blessed this way, why, I don't know.

Damn, and you said Nurglitch's "voices" post was heavily loaded.

/sarcasm=on
Thank you kindly Orlanth, for showing me the err of my ways. Even because I don't agree with you, I am humbled that you take pity on me and my handicap.
I am sure that in your "better position" you can truly see how ignorant I must be. I am guilty of "guessing at what I don't have experience of."
/sarcasm=off

/nerdrage=on
Oh, wait! That's right! I GREW UP CHRISTIAN! Yes, I do understand. Yes, I did experience it. No, I didn't like. Now I don't believe it.
I am getting a little pissed off.


Don't need pics and language like that thanks. ta.

@Mods: Please to not lock my thread. It's going pretty well overall, wouldn't you say?

@ Manchu

Literalism
Literalism is one of the bugbears of the church. Let us look at the principle bugbear related to literalism the seventh day advent.

I have never understood why intelligent design is seen as somthing new, to be honest this is how I understood difficult passages like Genesis even as a child. Literalism is the error.

Take for example the idea the concept of the Massach the Jews were waiting for , and most still are. When Jesus came, what did they expect the conquering Son of David to do? Bash Romans. Did he? No. because literalism was used to define the scriptures relating to him. Nowadays most Christians with theological training will be able to point to how old Testament predictions and promises lead to Jesus and how he is still the conquering son.

Nowadays people will accept that some passages are not to be taken literally but not others. we an explain how 'suffer not a witch to live' doesnt mean Christians should be murdering people who read teas leaves. we can explain that away with 'prophetic type' and other explanations. Yet still people insist on the seven day advent.

The answers were written in right from the beginning if you look.
Who was around, man? No just God. So Genesis 1 is seen from God's not a human persepective (and then relayed to Moses).

Scripture tells us that to God; a thousand years is as a day and a day a thousand years'. The Hebrew term thousand is not simply 1000 it means 'a lot', remember ancient Hebrews lacked the modern numbers system which is something comparatively recent.

So the advent was six long times of creation, they are not days at all. I think I was about ten when I first worked this out. The timelag of creation was never an issue. what puzzled me was the order or creation, which didnt fit sceince.

However God exists outside of Space-time so what he decided need not be the order things happened. Fair enough, but it was many years before I learned more: There is something called apocalyptic tradition, writing events in as poetic order - normally an order of importance rather than a chronological order. So to write about an assassination in apocalyptic order 1. the assassin takes the contract 2. the target is shot 3. the assassin fires his gun. The best example of apocalyptic writing is the book of Revelations, and is where we get the word apocalypse from. Apocalypse has of itself nothing to do with end of the world by definition, it simple means a poetic quasi-chronological order.

Manchu wrote:
It is not the only way to read the Bible and some authorities consider it to be erroneous because it is not only overly simplistic but also encourages individual interpretation, which unfortunate practice results in many more errors and even scandals. (I'm using the word "scandal" in its Greek sense, an obstacle to faith.)

Orthodoxy breeds inertia, it would be a good tghing if men could be trusted however time and again obstacles have been placed in the way of fresh interpretation as a control mechanism rather than to maintain the faith. The church should permit freedom of thought and interpretation through debate.

Manchu wrote:
I find that this literalism and the attendant tendency toward personal interpretation characterizes much of your experience as you have described it so far.

Your mileage on what defines literalism differs from mine in some areas I see, this is acceptible as your spiritual mileage might vary. Believers follow the same Way but their paths are often different.

Manchu wrote:
Specifically, what you are describing seems more of a kind of superstition than religion, especially your correlational logic regarding coincidence.

I would buy that if this was the focus of my faith, but it is not. I use this as a clear example for the thread of speaking to God because it involved correlation and multiple people picking the same passage from a very large source at 'random' without prior communication. I wouldn't call it at any means my best conversation with God.

Manchu wrote:
People who have "lucky charms" (or, in ancient times, pagan idols) frame the question in much the same way: "What are the chances of me having such good luck every time I found a penny? Finding a penny must be lucky."

I am framing no questions for myself. I need none to determine a faith. I believed then I saw, I have little or no doubt.

Manchu wrote:
These kind of claims about private spirituality, however, should not be misconstrued into definitional statements about Christianity.

Yes and no, that is why we overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony. Jesus is the focus of the core doctrine, teestimony is what makes that relevant. The idea is to be 'salt and light' to be a witness not necessarily through preaching but primarily by lifestyle. Yes preaching is good and strongly encouraged, but good example is where its at. Testimony of lives changed for the better of minimised hypocrasy, decent living and holiness are key.

Galatians 5:19 The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

When Christianity fails is where Christians fail to show the fruit of the spirit. While the doctrines of Christianity is frequently bashed there is no killer blow against it, them no matter what atheists say. There is plenty of room for a reasonable logically defendable faith, hypocracy is the weak link. Sadly we are all hypocrites, its just a matter of to what extent.

No, a spiritual life experience is not a definative statement about Christianity, it is a qualitative statement about Christinity.

Manchu wrote:
The belief system of Christianity, and I mean Trinitarian Christianity passed along from Jesus through the Apostles and eventually defined at Nicea in 325, does not involve so-called charismatic practices that are at best the quirks of individual communities and at worst, given the example of movements like those of Mohammed ad Joseph Smith, the origin of personality cults. That is why claims about hearing God, as you yourself admit, are dangerous. That is also why these claims arouse the skepticism and worry of believers and non-believers alike.

Right I see where you are coming from. I respect orthodox Christianity for its continuency however I disagree with you on several points.

eventually defined at Nicea in 325
By the 4th century primitive Christianity had settled down into a mainstream monolithic religion with a huge power base. it was not long after this that Christianity took over the Roman Empire in a very real way. Christianity had settled into orthodoxy and from that we ought not to omit the growing poltical and control influence of the church. The politicised church wants change like a hole in the head. How long after this was it until we got the Reformation and Catholic counter reformation, over a millenia.

does not involve so-called charismatic practices that are at best the quirks of individual communities
You really ought to re-read the books of Acts and Corinthians. Charismatic practices were normal acceptible and desired in the early church. Speaking in tongues, prophesy, joyous music (though frankly after half an hour in most charismatic churches I tend to agree that the devil has the best tunes), women ministers. Its all there.

and at worst, given the example of movements like those of Mohammed ad Joseph Smith, the origin of personality cults.
again, you know them by their fruit. Christians ought to produce fruit of the spirit. Dodgy priests are a fact of life, any sizable organisation attracts some of the wrong people who are there for the wrong reasons. Culty charismatics are less of a problem than orthodox priests who find room to fiddle behind the veil of silence. Neither belong in the church. the fact is stoic and effervescent forms of religion attact different types of crook. the main point is that both are a minority, most orthodox and charismatic ministers both are decent honest people.

That is why claims about hearing God, as you yourself admit, are dangerous.
No, I was avoiding why, it might in fact probably will be misunderstood. When you hear God you are hearing a 'high quality voice'. I believe some who hear voices actually do, and what is often labeled as schizophrenia is often demonic afflication. Contact with spiritual evil is not uncommon in the charismatic church. I myself have witnessed phenomena that I could best describe as demonic.
hearing voices is inherently dangerous, because not all voices come from God, also ones own imaginations get ijn the way.
These are only secondary problems, the principle reason is that the human hweart is deceptive, we all have desires and thiose desirtes can shape what we hear. This is part of human nature. The difference between wishful thinking and hearing from god is very slender, which is why wisdom must be applied.
First know the voice of God, the counterfeit is relatively easy to spot. Second God is always consistent, third your own spirit will confirm Gods voice. this is where the heart is a problem, as while you can tell the difference between the voice of God and your own subconscious once trained to it, you cannot easily tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and your hearts desire.
I myself got burned on this one at no fault but my own.

That is also why these claims arouse the skepticism and worry of believers and non-believers alike.
Non believers react with hostility to the spiritual because the unrepentant soul is hostile to God. We see this right here. People speaking about how nice and fair they are, but then state what they would like to do to those Christians. its understandable when talking about quasi Christian hate groups like Westboro Baptists, but no apparently some want to string us all up - then go back to being nice. Yes, they are figures of speech brought out by the anonymity of the internet, but the truth is persecution is seldom that far away. The closer you walk to God the harder it gets.

@MODs - Yeah, please don't - Tblock didn't mean to post a picture of a stoned horse, it just sort of 'happened'.

JEB wrote:That is fine, but that doesn't mean that belief in Atheism is without Faith

I don't 'believe' in Atheism though. I AM atheist - I think there is a difference. As we have disscussed in another thread, I belief that active denial of the existence of something is a positive action. I make no such positive action, because it just doesn't square with my world-view. I would require non-scriptural evidence to believe in god, UFOs or The Loch Ness Monster (not to trivialise, but I think it's valid) - I see no such evidence, so I do not believe. But neither do I deny. And I personally think that this type of discourse is more helpful than merely ramming evolution down each other's throats.

To sum up, failure to be convinced is not a Faith position - therefore my atheist position does not require Faith. That's not to say that other atheists might not display marked differences in what they believe.

How the F@#$ did this go from porn to religion?

Dakka I am disappoint.

Jesus is mentioned in the thread title. Do try to keep up.

Ah blow me, I have the dumb today.

@ Shadowbrand don't be disappointed.

We started with a Christian ex-porn star and her opinions on faith and porn.

This is an opportunity to post about God and or porn. How this can end up boring I have no idea.

@ Ironhide While I agree with Albatross and Manchu that the thread should be left unlocked, it should also be left untrolled. If you wish to espouse atheism do so in a logical and non offensive way. Please feel free to try to convince the forum that Jesus is a fraud if you think you can.

@Ironhide: Please don't post things like that as it tends to get threads locked.

@Ironhide: And there we go. Dis is gonna get locked!

@Ironhide - Hmmm. Are you trying to get this thread locked, or are you just a bit rude?

The two previous pics show my belief on the subject.

You can't prove he exists. And it is obvious that no amount of talking will convince you that he doesn't exists. I say leave it at that.

Agree to disagree.

Cool, thanks for stopping by.

/sarcasm

From statistical assumptions, we can safely say that the intent was to shut down the thread, albeit an attempt founded in a lack of understanding.

The OT has a history of these threads ending badly, and as such I tend to avoid them. This thread has been, if not entertaining, thoroughly enjoyable and quite smooth from the looks of it.

Possibility of a lock @ 20% currently.

Let us carry on and ignore the trolls. If the mods see this perhaps they could remove the trolling rather than destoy our arguemnt.

I mean no offence to anyone, any given is unintentional and I mean to contuinue in this light.

In return please hold back no logical punch against my religious opinions, I ask only that they are phrased politely. Most those I communicated with don't need this invite or request for politeness. Albatross you are next....

Wrexasaur wrote:From statistical assumptions, we can safely say that the intent was to shut down the thread, albeit an attempt founded in a lack of understanding.

The OT has a history of these threads ending badly, and as such I tend to avoid them. This thread has been, if not entertaining, thoroughly enjoyable and quite smooth from the looks of it.

Possibility of a lock @ 20% currently.

Dont be too sure, once the terolls have their piece and leave the threads can continue for pages of involved relgious debate and never get locked. there are some threads I can link to with similar discussions that are still open, though necroing them is not a good idea either.

I might link to one anyway, or copy paste part of what I wrote to dogma in the thread to avoid reiteration here.

Orlanth rather ominously wrote:Albatross you are next....

Next? I don't like the sound of that. Next for what, exactly?

@Orlanth: Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly reply to my remarks. I strongly encourage you to take an open-minded look at historical-critical biblical scholarship. Regarding the Reformation and its effects, I would recommend the book A Secular Age by Charles Taylor.

Orlanth wrote:Non believers react with hostility to the spiritual because the unrepentant soul is hostile to God. We see this right here. People speaking about how nice and fair they are, but then state what they would like to do to those Christians. its understandable when talking about quasi Christian hate groups like Westboro Baptists, but no apparently some want to string us all up - then go back to being nice. Yes, they are figures of speech brought out by the anonymity of the internet, but the truth is persecution is seldom that far away. The closer you walk to God the harder it gets.

I don't think that you are being persecuted because you are a Christian. I think you are receiving criticism because of your particular claims about what it means to be a Christian.

Albatross wrote:@MODs - Yeah, please don't - Tblock didn't mean to post a picture of a stoned horse, it just sort of 'happened'.

I am still wondering if I should attempt to explain myself to Tblock.

Albatross wrote:
I don't 'believe' in Atheism though. I AM atheist - I think there is a difference. As we have disscussed in another thread, I belief that active denial of the existence of something is a positive action. I make no such positive action, because it just doesn't square with my world-view. I would require non-scriptural evidence to believe in god, UFOs or The Loch Ness Monster (not to trivialise, but I think it's valid) - I see no such evidence, so I do not believe. But neither do I deny. And I personally think that this type of discourse is more helpful than merely ramming evolution down each other's throats.

To sum up, failure to be convinced is not a Faith position - therefore my atheist position does not require Faith. That's not to say that other atheists might not display marked differences in what they believe.

Is it fair to put you down as a 'don't know - but probably not'. The atheistic equivalent of an agnostic. if you articulate an opinion at all though you are still expressing a faith choice. The best you can hope for here is to make religion a non issue. that is all very well because you don't then seem to be esposing atheism, but condemns you to inaction on the subject or at least a commitment to dispassionate neutrality. I wonder if the human heart is wired that way, few if any people can be that consistently logical for long.

Again if you are atheist then somewhere down the line the choice has been made, even if it is symbolised by reverting to a pre-assumed default of 'non belief'. I suppose this entitles you to attempt to act as a mediator in a debate who looks at all evidence dispassionately, but who is truly dispassionate.

The way you describe your atheism sounds plausible, but I doubt it has been adequately tested. Somewhere down the line, and by now probably in the past the line is crossed and the heart takes a step one way or another.

After all the worst error in science is to believe that we are logical beings, even scientists are ruled by emotion. How often do you see or read of scientific methods being set aside in favour of pig headed resistence when established thinking is challenged by new evidence. All too often the resistence to new evidence is based on pride and the human comfort in knowing answer to a problem, so much so that new theories even those that fix faults in the old theories are often resisted by the human ego long after they should have been accepted by the body academic. We are human after all, sooner or later the heart rules the head.

Religion accepts the imperfection of the human being and acknowledges the human mindset. Science does not, it attempts to be formal and impartial and scientists must to some extent dehumanise themselves to practice scientific method properly. Now when you apply science to such matters as God the soul and/or the afterlife you can see how this very rapidly breaks down. Consequently sir, while I accept your answer I accept it as a modus operandi which has not yet been truly tested or you would have seen this dichotomy yourself.