case

What, that Pat Robertson really is God?

Theli

I find this thread quite amusing.

The only time god will speak to you is when you believe in his existence so much that you think he's talking to you.
Some people who claim that god has spoken to them makes it up because they don't want to be "the one with insufficient faith".

Anyway, I agree with Wyrdsmyth. Where have all the miracles gone?
The only "miracles" we get today is supposed faces of jesus in coffee stains.
Isn't it kind of obvious that the ones who wrote of the "past miracles" exaggerated just a bit and also added some parts to make their stories more appealing to the masses?

All we get now is protestants and catholics arguing about the bible like a couple of angry dogs fighting over a bone.
<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />
Trying to justify their own opinions by the bible and paint it up as "GOD'S WILL".

Where's the bliss?

[ May 18, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Sicarius

Maybe its the fact that you are trying to see god in the first place. First, take in consideration that god isnt the omniscience and omnipotent god that the christian faith makes him out to be. God, or a higher being thereof, can simply be just that; a higher being. The recognization of this higher being is niether seen nor heard, but rather felt, through meditation and seperation from mortal presence. Omnipotence of course is an impossibility given our free will that we DO possess. And through our free will, we come to realize that our given "god" does not exist as man has made him out to be,be it biblical or not. Therefor, the "god" we are looking for is not the "god" in reality, taking in consideration of rather there even IS a god in the first place. Its all very confusing, but to be quite blunt, that is simply all organized religion does: confuse the living hell out of millions of people.

MadMordigan

if faith is the suspension of reason, then how is that different from being a sucker?

Its the same to which ever con man is trying to get your cash or obeidiance.

critical thinking made ez

Faith is always relative to the evidence that supports it. Therefore, faith is not always a sucker bet. The real problem is in determining how substantial the evidence is. I think that is what Wyrdsmyth was looking for when he ask to see behind the curtain. Right?

Wyrdsmyth

Yes. I'd like to evaluate the evidence for myself. I think that's completely reasonable.

In that dialogue, I had the preacher refuse to let the "me" character look behind the curtain. Why? Because he wants me to believe first, before looking.

This is how I see a lot of religions. They claim they have evidence, but they never get around to giving it to you. Instead, they ask you to just believe, take it on faith. Or, they tell you that in order for you to see the evidence, it is a necessary precondition that you first believe.

Can't other people see how absurd this is? I think it's obvious, but I guess a lot of people don't.

free12thinker

I too missed the sarcasm and was going to chime in with questions for Sikh like:

1.)How do you suggest we reveal ourselves to that which we don't believe exists? I don't think theists realize just how absurd such a suggestion is. And not just with God being the subject. How is anyone supposed to reveal themselves to anything, believe in anything or even pretend to believe in anything that doesn't have an iota of credibility? It really is a difficult task.
2.)You note that, "With all do respect, atheists (as far as I know) are a VERY bias bunch. They have the conviction that there is no God so infixed in their minds, that any plausible evidence for a God MUST be fallible by default". What plausible evidence is there?

free12thinker

I agree here. One can have faith that their relationship can sustain into marriagehood, with evidence being past honesty and fun and all of that jazz. One can have faith that an interviewee will be a good hire based on evidence such as past employment history, references......

In these instances, faith is not a sucker bet. But in determining the evidence surrounding a deity, the evidence is severaly lacking, thereby making it a sucker bet. Not unlike picking up a hitchhiker.

KeithHarwood

I think that the word `faith' is being mis-used here and earlier in this thread. What you are talking about here is trust. Trust is different from faith in as much as trust has to be earned by whoever is being trusted and once earned (perhaps easily in cases like hitchhikers) it has to be maintained and can easily be lost. Faith, on the other hand, is a unilateral commitment on the part of the faithful in the absence of any evidence for that faith.

When I see a hitchhiker I can make an estimate of trust, clothes, bearing, age. I then have evidence on which to base my trust.(Hm, nice pair of legs, leer, slobber.) Similarly the hitchhiker has evidence on which to trust me. And that trust is conditional on the behaviour of each other.

Or, as Avon said to Servellan, `Does anyone ever trust you twice?'

Faith, OTOH, is granted unilaterally and maintain regardless of the behaviour, or absence of behaviour, of the object of that faith.

Ron Singh

Hi Freethinker,

First of all, I would like to apologize for generalizing atheists as bias. I was trying to say that most atheists here are not open to the possible existence of God, but are firmly against the notion. Apparently they believe that it is like saying 5=4. I believe that even the sternest of atheists should concede and say that there is a possibility of a creator, just like there is a possibility of invisible unicorns floating around. Not that this would "show them the light" or anything. For this stereotype, I apologize.

1. I Agree to some extent. I believe that the first step is to clear your mind of any notion of God, and just consider a creator. Is there any evidence against the such? I think that the first step is to consider the possibility that there is a God. Or maybe I'm wrong.

2. Evidence? I may have stated this in a vague matter. Different evidence suffices for different people. I tend to adhere to the cosmological (kalam) arguement. Why something instead of nothing?