If it is generally agreed that humans are naturally inquisitive and search for "truth" "meaning" and

To me the word BELIEVE suggests that you take as fact something for which you have no empirical proof. eg I believe in God, I believe that I have a soul, I believe that God says I can't have a blood transfusion, I believe that if I covet my neighbour's donkey (system won't let me say a$s) I may not go to heaven, I believe in UFOs etc.

If we use the word BELIEVE to mean that we accept a particular explanation as the best answer based on all the knowledge we have at hand then, sure atheists believe in all sorts of stuff.

I Believe that failing some cataclysmic event (or clouds) the sun will come up tomorrow. I believe that evolution provides the best theory on how we came to be the way we are today.

And here's something I realised just the other day. Everybody believes in the supernatural. Before you scoff...

Unless we already know everything there is to know AND nature refers to the material universe and its phenomena as we know it THEN what we don't know is beyond nature (supernatural).

There are a lot of beliefs that you can have and God is just one of them.

No more than I agree that any of us could have no conscience, no kindness, or no ill will. I believe what is affecting us is affecting nature (or vice versa), i.e., we have descended deeply, perhaps too far, into the coarseness of matter. When matter ascends into Spirit and Spirit descends unto manifestation it means for us a more ethereal existence leaning in the direction the masters have taken before us. For nature it also means a change to a more ethereal existence that will dissolve the extremes of the seasons and what grows up will not need to be done so by cultivation but it will put itself forth of its own accord on our behalf, a Divine benevolence. If nature is blind now, or unconscious, it is no different from the ongoing blindness of humanity. Every atom is a part of the Anima Mundi, the Universal Soul.

Wow Rammie, you're biting off alot with this one. I can agree with most of what you are saying, but we may end up just dealing with semantics if we go too far with this one.

You appear to start with the assumption that all humans search for "truth". I would disagree with part of that and say that some people search for truth, and some just look for an excuse (or something besides "truth").

And I would argue that if someone is searching for the truth, then that would place the "truth" into the "unknown" category, and that any "truth-seeker" would have to examine *ALL* possibilities in their quest for the truth, including the supernatural possibilities. So yes, if someone is a truth-seeker, they have to examine *all* things. To deny anything without first seeking it out would make someone something other than a truth-seeker.

But, if someone is looking for something besides the truth (which *ALL* people do to some extent), then it would be expected that they would automatically cut out any categories of knowledge that conflicted with their personal pursuits.

I believe seeking is part of finding the truth. If you refuse to look somewhere or into some particular category, you cannot find the truth.

I could go on and on with this one, but I will spare everyone, lol.

Rammie, you miss the point. It is perfectly logical to not believe in a god. After all, I'm pretty sure you don't believe in Zeus or Ra. Is it logical for you to not believe in those gods?

It is more logical to believe in the marvel of gravitational, Coulombic and Van der Waal forces as the guiding hand of creation, the Laws of Thermodynamics as unwavering spiritual principles and the fantastic beauty of the Krebs cycle as the spark of the life force.

Why dirty up all of that beauty with fantastic conjecture dictated by goat herders?

Edit: You ask how? The answer to the "how" is in my first question about your belief in Zeus or Ra (looks up). That it is perfectly logical to not believe in those gods is, for me, understandably interpolated to all gods, period. It is illogical to discount all other gods yet still keep one. But no one likes to be called illogical, so I'll send a hug (((Rammie))) and wish you a happy vernal equinox, despite the cold and snow.

Rammie, I find this question interesting. It basically comes down to what one thinks the essence of the universe is.

At one point I called myself atheist, but looking back on it now, I think I was more of a pantheist.

I'm watching these answers.

Why does anything need to be "supernatural"? As far as I can tell, all things are natural. Just because we haven't figured out how some things work yet doesn't mean we should imagine all kinds of crazy possibilities and try to assert them as facts.

It's natural to want to understand... to seek the truth and meaning.

But there are many options on belief religiously...none satisfy as an answer for me. That doesn't mean that I believe in "nothing".

As far as the creation of the world, I think it's possible to believe in nothing...I just can't do it, myself. I have to admit that I can't quite "get" that mindset, but I'm sure they feel the same way about my mindset. : )

As far as personal philosophy, I believe that every person finds a meaning to life, it just is not necessarily religion. Some people live for their work, some for their families, some for money, etc.

Everybody has a small g god that they live their life for; whether they call it that or not.

Its a matter of imagination... I dont think science or religion would get far without it... however the one imagines how a thing might work and then tests it while the other simply imagines how it might work and states it to be thus...

I am willing to entertain the idea that there is some infinite force that binds the cosmos together, but it certainly wouldn't resemble bible monstergod.