> Sam, your reasoning on this point is circular. It doesn't make sense until you assume (believe) the existence of the Christian God as fact, and after that it's trivial to say that Christianity is a state of being rather than a state of belief.
>

Aye, there's the rub. Sam's logic makes sense to me because I accept it as fact. But, you are right, if you don't, it doesn't make sense or seems crazy. But the same can be said for what you believe to be logical. For me to believe what you believe, I need to accept some things as fact. If I don't do that, it sounds crazy to me and I probably seem crazy to you for not seeing what you obviously see as fact.

But that is also the conundrum. Philosophy students love this stuff. Does my belief make something true? And, does your opposit belief make it true? Are we both right or is only one of us right? Of course, we might both be wrong. The existentialist view would be that we make our own reality, individually. But I find flaws in that argument which I cannot ignore or deny.

So, breaking it down to one example, the atheist has hopefully figured out the truth that there is no greater being. The Christian has hopefully figured out that there is God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I don't think of it in relative terms. One person is right, and one is wrong. There can only be one truth and if the atheist is right, my belief in Jesus Christ as my savior might make me feel good, but it doesn't make it true. And vice versa.

That is why I appreciate knivetsil's approach (based on what he has said). He hasn't said, "How can I believe in a God that let's people get sick," and then suddenly decide there must not be a God. He has used his observances to come to the conclusion. His observances might include a statement like that, but it certainly isn't a spur of the moment decision because it is convenient.

Ferrick