One of the things RRS seems to be interested is getting agnostics to admit that they are really atheists. I'm personally half way there, perhaps just one more intellectual stumbling block for me to cross before I feel comfortable considering myself an atheist. (we'll get to that in a bit)
There are reasons why agnostics distinguish themselves from atheists, and although these reasons are flawed (IMO) all that means is we need to get good at exposing these flaws, right?

So here are some points that need to be addressed:

1) What it means to believe.
I can think of two ways to define 'belief'.
One is that 'affirmative feeling', the other is the 'would you act on this?' question.
If it's the former then I'm agnostic because I sometimes get that 'affirmative feeling' of something greater. Rationalising has lessened the occurance of this affirmative feeling but it's still there. People who consider themselves open minded will be open to these 'affirmative feelings' and think that they sometimes believe, making the 'atheist' tag seem inappropiate.
However, if we were to use the latter definition, the "would you act on this?" (it's often said that if you really believe in something then you act on it) then so many more people would be happier to consider themselves atheistic. Most agnostics act as if God isn't there. I also think that it would clear up other confusions e.g. someone who got an 'affirmative feeling' about a racial prejudice might be appalled at themselves and think that they are racist. However, there's a large difference between one of these feelings (that we've probably all had at some point or other) and a 'rationalised' thought out belief that one acts on (like a real racist who actively discriminates in practice).
(PS. If we settle this one here then I'm officially an atheist!)

My activities on this site are not without much fruit. In fact I did engage in much debate about the origin of the universe and the theories of biological evolution. However, I would be remiss if I didn't bring to light some of the more humourous aspects of this ridiculous web endevour:

1. One of the founders, a man by the name of Rook Hawkins, claims to be an ancient text expert. However, we never really come to understand the nature of his expertise, or even his competence in this field. News at 11:00.

2. The Phsychology expert is a person who referes to on air debates as Bakkuke Parties. These parties are Japanese in nature and is a group sex practice wherein a series of men take turns ejaculating onto a woman, or in rare cases a man, sitting, lying down, or kneeling. The semen is left on the face as another man repeats the routine.^[1] A new variant is lesbian bukkake, practiced by women.

One thing that the RRS wants is to get agnostics to admit that they are atheists, that they don't believe in God. Many 'moderates' could also be described as 'not really believing'. I think a look into what we mean when we say we 'believe' could be beneficial.

With me, I always associated belief to that 'affirmative feeling'.
It's difficult to describe what this feeling is, but I think the important thing is that it was a 'feeling'. Perhaps the same kind of feeling you get from your gut intuition.
When belief is defined like this, agnostic makes the most sense as it's difficult to get an absolute feeling on there being a, or a lack of a, God. You get the "I don't really know" feeling.

I would like to make a distinction between atheist and theist reasons for believing.

I hear the constant Christian argument that it is best to "accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour" -- when you fall upon hard times or are suffering from depressing problems in your life. In Colorado Springs, where I live, I listen to "Focus on the Family" radio that is headed by "Dr." James Dobson (PhD in Child Psychology). Colorado Springs is a mecca for evangelical Christians. I listen to this station simply to know what religious garbage we are up against.

Many times, I will hear a commentator say something akin to, "It's a good time to meet the Lord when you're depressed."

Hey Sapient.

well I've been thinking a lot and well idk, I guess my question is what do you think the problem is with the church now days?

Hello All,

I wanted to thank you all for the opportunity to partake in some of the discussions recently, and I would be remiss if I didn't take an opportunity to spread God's Word. So I ask you to please lend me your eyes and your mind for just a few minutes and read below:

God created this universe and everything in it, including each one of us. Because He wanted to, and He could.

We were created with free will, a conscience that convicts us, and the law written on each of our hearts.

We were created to seek Him and reach out for Him - though He is not far from any of us.

Sin entered the world via our free will, and as such so did death, dissease, aging, etc..

When I hear that religion/supernaturalism is 'irrational' it doesn't seem right to me. A lot of others agree with my sentiments and the kneejerk reaction is to try and give reasons for supernaturalism. In my opinion, this always ends in failure because the arguments don't hold under scrutiny. But even afterwards, calling supernaturalism irrational doesn't seem right, especially when you talk to believers in it.
Dawkins and others will say that this is because many of them are rational in every other way so the impression of rationality sticks, even when they turn it off. The thing is, these supernaturalists are still trying to apply the same reasoning to their supernatural beliefs, even if their reasoning is flawed.

I'm getting really wound up by the fact that whenever I click on the topic I have to go to the first page before the last page. Even if I click 'new' and the new posts are on the last page it takes me to the first. It's especially frustrating as my Internet is really unreliable at the moment so less clicks would make a real difference to me.

Could you put links to individual pages of the topic next to the topic's listing?
Please?

TESTIMONY #1
A young boy was in a bedroom with his sister and her friend. The girls found their father's gun and started playing with it. The gun went off and went right through the young boys head. The boys grandmother called the pastor. Rev. David Shatwell (although the man doesn't matter). Bro. Shatwell prayed about this, went to the hospital and saw this boy. The doctors were saying that certain parts of the brain that were used for certain motor functions were damaged and the boy would not be able to do certain things anymore. Bro. Shatwell went in that hospital room and did just what he was moved through prayer to do. He pointed his finger at the boy and exclaimed. "I COMMAND YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST TO LIVE, LIVE I SAY LIVE, LIVE AND DO NOT DIE! IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST". The mother is on the other side of the bed holding her son's hand. She starts screaming saying "HE SQUEEZED MY HAND!". the boy had been unconscious. Before this point the doctors were not going to operate, but they decided to, still claiming that the boy would have disabilities. That young boy very shortly afterwards was completely recovered, 100% healthy no disabilities.

On Fridays, Nottingham's Christian Union have this event called "lunch bar".
You go to the Portland building at 1pm where they'll have a room booked and will out sandwiches as a free lunch. The catch is that you listen to a Christian speaker talk. At the end you get to ask questions. This Friday the topic is the evidence for the historical Jesus.

I have some basic knowledge of the basic Christian argument and rebuttals, but as there's only about 10 mins for questions and I'll be sharing the time with others in the audience, I want my questions to be as simple, direct and effective as possible.