livius drusus

Your musings on faith and schu's sins may be riveting, but they have exactly zero pertinence to the topic at hand which once again, is the definition of Freethinker.

Radorth

Not sure about that, as I define a freethinker.

Riveting, eh?

I liked that barb, actually.

Starboy

Radorth, you lost me. How is "the evidence of things not seen" evidence? To me it sounds very much like hope or wishful thinking. You see something you cannot explain but it gives you hope and you decide to attribute it to a very specific cause for no good reason other than it makes you feel good. Come to think of it, it is not just wishful thinking it is delusional.

Starboy

schu

My sins? You are making things up here Rad. Pretending as good xians always do. In other words free from critical thinking. Just rattling the chains old chap and making things up as you go along.

ybnormal

Originally posted by Radorth
The Bible defines faith as...

Only you, Rad, would actually use the bible as a dictionary in a discussion seeking to define "Free Thinker".

Does it work for Scrabble too?


Therefore faith is... the result of evidence...

What a boring place this was B4 you arrived. Thanks for the perpetual entertainment machine. (sorry about all those little dots between your words... what is it you call them?)

NOGO

You are saying that some people get real evidence that tells them that the Christian God exists.

You are then also saying that other faiths do not get these messages and if they pretend to get them then they are liars. If things were so simple.

Other religions also have people who have faith and who see all sorts of evidence in their lives which tells them that their faith is true. They see God working miracles in their lives just like Washington etc..

Science does not accept anecdotal evidence for a very simple reason ... they are unreliable.

Radorth

.So you think Washington and Franklin were delusional. I'm in good company then, along with Locke, Newton and Bacon as well. Maybe you're the deluded one?

No I didn't.

It's possible I suppose. But tell us what miracles Muhammed worked as reported by his immediate disciples? (Answer: none)

Yes, for making medicine, rockets and bombs. Otherwwise it's quite useful, and some of it I would call empirical. If you woke up from sleep speaking in a foreign language, never having heard it, would you consider that "anecdotal"? Or if an ulcer you had for ten years disappeared (as my brother's did) would you call that anecdotal? If you kept seeing what Washington and Franklin saw happening, which made them believe in the "invisible hand," is that anecdotal? If you give generously and it comes back to you just as Jesus said "good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over," is that "anecdotal?

Call it what you want. Call it "unscientific." It doesn't change spiritual realities.

Rad

Starboy

Radorth, I have no idea if they were delusional. For all I know it may be one of the hallmarks of both fools and geniuses. I know that the people you refer to were considered geniuses, but I suspect you fall into the other category. If you want to keep this conversation friendly stop erecting straw man arguments.

Why do you resist owning up to the idea that when it comes to your religion all you have is "the evidence of things not seen" and that by todays standards that is no longer considered evidence. Long ago such thinking was an acceptable way to conduct one's life but in this day and age it is considered just wacky.

Starboy

Dividend4

Religion requires faith, faith is belief without proof. Belief without proof is irrational.

Radorth

Yes, by all the omniscient atheists in the world, who have just conclusively shown that Paul wrote Acts 50 years after he died.

"Wacky" is in the mind of the beholder I'm afraid. Personally I feel rather sane and rational after reading some of the "higher forums" lately.

Rad