As I wanted to mention in my previous post, to me, theism or athiesm are meaningless because of the subjectivity inherent in our philosophical and especially theological view of existence.
To be honest, the concept of a benign supernatural being is truly satisfying and inspiring. But 'feeling' good something about doesn't mean that we should stand up and distort our view by posing with extreme boldness the existence of God.
As far as I am concerned, I am more happy being a silent observer and explorer with very personal 'beliefs'. Theism or atheism is not my destination (especially atheism). It doesn't seem to me that I am ever going to have absolute answers of the big questions we ask about God (and 'why God?' still remains a queston). I would not say that Yanniru hallucinates. I would not say that Alexander shows blind prejudice either.
I just think that no human can grasp the priniciples of existence outside the sphere of science which is, of course, the most objective method we have. Philosophy and theology are highly subjective. Ask yourself. If you would have born in a world where there was no concept of God, you wouldn't have smiled in response to 'why God?'
I would try to see both the sides of the picture but I surely think that an objective conclusion can't be achieved. Science asks precise questions and prepares models. Philosophy, to some extent, gives meaning to the whole process. But, theology seems to go too far in persuit of ultimate answers. But who knows? May be the ultimate answers do lie that far.
I think I have made my point clear. I'll be waiting for comments.

Yasir.

• The floodgates - harvey1 - January 22, 2002 - 16:47 UTC
  • Difference between science and theology. - alexander - January 22, 2002 - 23:07 UTC
    • We should try to advance our discussions - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 00:14 UTC
    • Science ignores certain facts - yanniru - January 23, 2002 - 15:21 UTC