Believe:

[Pippy]

Hey,

Thank you for replying, and for welcoming me Athoughtfulman.

---

I appreciate your taking the time to chat. I enjoyed reading your response. I hear and understand your definition of evidence, and of course I agree. I speak a lot in rhetoric, it's the poet coming out. I meant it more from the angle of the 'individual' or 'interpretive realities' point. And I honor your want to live as real a life as possible. "The most reliable view of the world" I think you put it, and well put! Could I assume that that is similar to the most 'honest' or 'real' or 'true' world? I have nothing but support for anyone striving for 'truth'.

The concluding point is the you have to not waste time with anything unprovable. I also agree, but with an exception. In short, I think God (gods, Goddess, goddesses...) exists in the realm of thought. Of idea. And anything that exists only as an idea, thought or interpretation cannot be proven or unproven. It, to me, is another type of thing which only can be believed. It can seem provable to me, and unprovable to you, and we haven't actually gone anywhere.

But that does tie in strongly with personal realities, and you said that you found such idea idiotic. That is fine, and I appreciate that, but it is a very solid underpinning of my world-view. It seems very real to me (hehe get it?). I think you may have, in a small way, agreed by disagreeing. Whether or not we all live in our own little world, separate from one another (only as misinterpretations of the One Real World that we cannot fully comprehend) is an idea. It cannot be literally proven or dis-proven. It can seem 100% to me one way, but that does not make it real, in the sense that the screen I am looking at is real.
That, too me, is an example of interpretive realities. That you and I can disagree on interpretive realities.
I do agree though, that it does leave us with nothing, in a sense. But I think it is honest.

All evidence, regardless of it's simplicity or obviousness, has to pass through the veil of personal reality.

I completely understand atheism as you defined it, I spent years as an agnostic atheist. The only part I really don't understand is the concept of non-belief. I am not sure if you can add 'non' as a prefix and say it's wholly the opposite of the prior word (good/ungood). I only see belief. And disbelief, which is a semantic clarification, but still literally belief. I can't see that atheists have a black spot in their heads where others have belief. Please, if you would, explain the concept more.

I read the post you suggested, and I understand all of those points as well. I don't think atheists are ALL rude or immoral or anything. That would be silly. The only thing that stood out at me was "...but a good understanding of science does tend to lead people to disbelief,". I agree that it tends to lead people, but if I may, for the record, state that I went the route of understanding science (and philosophy and history and politics) and came to the conclusion of belief. Even if I am the only one, please allow me to be the exception.

---

Thank you again for sharing your time.
"I don't trust cats"
Pip

---

Kyuuketsuki,

Hello, thank you for replying.
It is a difficult subject, yes.
I saw the debate forums, and was very impressed. I have never seen that on a forum, and I forum a lot.
I look forward to watching on.

Thanks,
"Those cats..."
Pip