Truth is, if there was solid evidence for the existence of God, it then would be a point of fact with no room for faith.

Therefore is it possible that the continued neutrality is being sustain by God for our benefit?

Views: 4473

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Then I guess we're in for quite a wait, because I know a ton of both Jews and Gentiles who have no interest in becoming anyone's sheep.

So, Mikhail, how does that sleepy thing work - let's say you're half-Jewish and half-Gentile - mixed nationalities - does the Jewish half fall asleep and the Gentile half stay awake? Would that be the left half and the right half, or the bottom half and the top half? I mean, can you imagine your bottom half being awake and capable of functioning, while you're top half doesn't work so well? Yeah, I guess you can, can't you --?

WTF? Is this a joke post?

Dear Folks:

 I remember something about the 'absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence'. Theists can 'point' towards 'evidence' for the existence of a god, first cause, prime mover, intelligent designer, or what have you. But atheists can use all or most of the same material, with different interpretations, to generate a divergent hypothesis/assertion. An issue that might affect both could be more about human cognition and less about what resides behind the details to ultimate reality. To me, it seems that theists want to jump the gun on aquiring 'truth'. While atheists, myself included, might consider what evidence exists as not coersive. Saying that everything points towards and demands the existence of some creative intelligent force, while such an idea could simplify understanding, does not help with the deep details. It just begs the questions, it does not happlly silence doubt or honesty.      

Dude stop religion trolling lol no evidence means no neutrality.

"Is the  neutral verdict on the existence of God being maintain by God?"

What neutral verdict, pray tell? No neutral verdict here. You answer your own question - how clever is that?

If there was solid evidence for your particular god, everybody WOULD believe - but there isn't, none, so Voila, no room for faith. 

Why do you have to have faith. What is faith but belief in the unprovable. I have faith there is a white unicorn in my room - you have to prove it isn't there, but what is the point? You are saying your particular god is playing games? Man is so stupid in believing this. Sad really :(

It's a discussion like this that makes me more fearful of self-fulfilling prophesy. Terrible things can happen as a result of faith.

Can anyone here guess what part Romney might think he should play in his vision of the end of our world? All it takes to make it happen is a serious dose of Faith, right?

The Court Jester --?

I can't see why this would benefit us. Why would God want us to have "Faith" anyway? I know the bible praises blind faith all the time... but that doesn't answer the question of why God wants it in the first place. The doctrine of Hell for nonbelievers makes this question even more important and perplexing. A "god who loved the world so much..." demands that people believe something without evidence or be punished forever? Huh?

Nonsensical belief systems that extol the virtue of having faith have a greater survival value than those that don't.  This is why we don't have a religion based on magic pixies telling us to be good scientists.  Instead, we have Christianity. 

I think somebody should note (and I guess it's me) that "faith" is not a word with a single meaning, and that the use of the word "faith" in The Bible differs in an important way from the way it's used by Christians, and especially Protestants, and especially fundamentalists.

If you do a search for the term "faith" in The Bible (and I searched in The King James Version) the word isn't used as often as you might expect, and when it is it tends to mean being faithful in the sense of being loyal. In modern Christianity it has come to mean believing something is true apart from evidence, or despite contrary evidence.

The obvious conclusion is that the idea of believing something apart from or despite contrary evidence wasn't part of the original religious doctrine, but is a later accretion.

@Unseen - that makes a lot of sense - not to Michael, likely, but to anyone else with a logical frame of mind.

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38(Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service