Do athiests actually ask what is truth? Or I refuse to believe your truth?

ewarner1: I have read the postings of many an athiest on these forums and most of you are guilty of extremly sloppy thinking, it is not that you cannot logically attack religion, or defend non belief, I did for many years before becoming a person of deep faith.

Are you really asking? Are you seeking truth? Or honestly just stating opinions as facts? So many of you seem pretty darn angry at a God you claim is not there.

deuce916: The truth is there is no god. Until you have decided that for yourself you will just be believing in lies that have been handed down for years.

There is no god & that is a fact.

rabbitizer: I admit that there might exist a deity (or a set of deities like the pantheons of India, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece), but the Judo-Christian-Muslim concept is clearly man-made. A "ruler of the universe" would never have sunk down to the level of today's destructive worshipers and let us kill each other in its name. Something must clearly be wrong here, but I'm afraid that we will never be able to find out exactly what. In the meantime, I will continue to deny the existence of any god in the earthly religions, while keeping the door ajar for a potential cosmic being, so exalted above all the trivial machinations of religions that it will never be bothered with doctrines that condemn some of us to eternal suffering, a completely insane concept.

CoIin: Since "truth" was mentioned, I would just say that if you're planning a trip to Japan, you're more likely to get objective "truth" about tourist attractions from a Lonely Planet guidebook ,say, than from glossy Ministry of Tourism brochures. You might get some nice photos though.

You're as unlikely to find the "truth" about [holy man of choice] in the [holy book of choice]. Those pushing an agenda have little interest in "truth".

To those who are aware of the facts of their religion and still choose to believe, I say believe on and [deity of choice] bless.

Kundra: In my opinion, [...those who are aware of the facts of their religion and still choose to believe...] are on a collision course with reality.

CoIin: well, when the facts are at odds with my beliefs, the facts had better watch out

CoIin: Just to clarify a little, and I'm not trying to be offensive, most Christians I've met are shockingly benighted about their own religion. Yes, they can quote a few of the cosier passages of Scripture, but they are often completely unaware of the countless atrocities in the Bible, not to mention the literally thousands of errors, inconsistencies and outright contradictions.

Few Christians I've met are aware that the Gospels were almost certainly not written by apostles or eyewitnesses, and that in fact more than half the books of the New Testament were probably not written by the people whose names they are ascribed, i.e. they are anonymous (eg. the Gospels) or are forgeries (many of the Epistles). And if I had a penny for every Christian I met who thought the Bible was written in English....

I sometimes hear this imputed to lack of education, but this seems to me like a very poor excuse. A library card will give you access to the same information as leading Biblical scholars. All ministers/priests are aware of the above facts, but seem not eager to promulgate them. Not surprising perhaps, but intellectually and morally bankrupt.

conspiracy: If the theists had started to question the authentisity of their doctrines instead of blindly literalising them, I'm sure that the world would have turned into a much better place to be for many people.

ewarner1: Oh what a slippery thing "fact" can be! A fact that God does not excist, how on earth could that possibly be a fact!

Opinions are not facts!

deuce916: Well maybe you can clear this up & provide at least one fact about the existence of a god.

CoIin: A correct opinion is a fact (think that was Socrates)

bruceybaby100: Fact... for something to exist it has to be created..... the universe?

CoIin: How do you know that?

bruceybaby100: i just think for things that exist without being created....

CoIin: Well, I agree, it goes against most of our experience, but it's still an assumption.

ewarner1: Well, I am actually thinking hard (the rust is coming off) and I believe that in regards to God we have beliefs and that is it. Logicaly disproving God is impossible, I mean how could you? You can say it is a fact there is no God but you really are saying, I really don't want there to be, or I don't think there is, or I don't like the idea that some actions are really right and some wrong because of the nature of the world, moral truth.

If you say that it is a fact that there is a God, which I am tempted to do, that needs to be put to the test as well. I could say I have seen miricles and heard from God when I have prayed, see a design in the universe that makes the lack of a designer see far too improbable. However, I could be deluded, crazy, or a liar.

So really the answer is faith. You can find evidence for God, or not, but we choose one or the other. Which is why I think it takes as much faith to be an athiest as any kind of believer, faith gets confused with fact. I am very sure of my own conclustions and have evidence to back it up, but proof? I don't think any of us have it-yet. When we die we will of course.

CoIin: Of course there is no definitive proof for the existence or non-existence of a god. We should bear in mind though that not being able to disprove something does not automatically confer "likelihood" to it.

As to the old liar/deluded/correct argument (which Moslems use too), can't someone just be "wrong"? We're all human. We all make mistakes.

ewarner1: If I say I have prayed for healing and seen people healed, I can be nuts, or lying, but I have trouble seeing wrong. I have found your replies to be interesting and articulate by the way.

StuckInTheSixties: ewarner1 says:
"So really the answer is faith. You can find evidence for God, or not ..."

You're badly abusing the word "evidence."

CoIin: Well, I hate to use a cliche, but why are there no miracle cures for amputees, no matter how hard they or anyone else prays?

StuckInTheSixties: Good cliche.

Coach-Man: Regarding prayers and healing...

To theists that pray for sick people that become well, it may of course seem as if their prayers have cured the patient.

Broader research, where thousands of cases have been included in controlled surveys, has shown, however, that such cases are rear when one includes all the situations where prayers don't seem to help.

Broken down to sub-studies, we need to include the placebo effect, where believers thinking that they are prayed for experience a healing effect, just the same way that many patients thinking that they are given the correct medication also seem to recover in a remarkable way, although they are only given sugar pills.

The human mind is a srange and finely-tuned instrument that modern research still hasn't figured out everyting about.

The reason why amputees cannot be healed by prayers is, of course, that such a condition cannot be cured by a person's subconscious mind, which can make cancer tumors disappear, but not cause a lost finger to grow back.

This has nothing to do with religion or one particular faith. Some healers use Jesus as their focus points, others Fatima, while non-believers concentrate their healing powers in relation to a crystal, a glass of water or nothing at all. The result is exactly the same. In a very limited number of cases, they manage to heal the patient by triggering the mechanism in his own body that enables him to cure himself. Then, in hindsight, it is easy to give a deity the credit for the "miracle".

ewarner1: How am I abusing the evidence? (not literaly I hope) evidence can be an object such as OJs glove, or personal testimony, my personal experience of God, evidence can be rejected, or incorrect, but evidence it still is.

Of course we all like evidence that suports what we want, stuff that does not we do not.

ewarner1: I agree that healing can be a state of mind, reqardless of whether or not you are praying or not.

However, in my home town I know a man who claims, and others claim as well, was brought back from the dead. I was not there but I have spoken with him and others who were there, and dozens of people (and him) say he was as dead as a doornail before a group of Lutherans (of all people) prayed him back to life. He is pretty famous in our area. I also know a guy from Mexico, we were in the service together, who claimed his totally crippled hand was healed by a nun famous for such healing. He showed me pictures and it looked impossible for his hand to be what it was. I myself have never seen such a thing, but I have seen some truly remarkable things take place, things that seemed, and seem, truly impossible.

StuckInTheSixties: ewarner1 replies:
"How am I abusing the evidence?"

I didn't say that.

I said (emphasis added in CAPS) :

" You're badly abusing THE WORD 'evidence.' "

CoIin: @ Ewarner - re divine intervention amd "miraculous" healings

See, this is the mindset I can never understand. A plane crashes killing all 200 aboard. The dude who missed the flight celebrates God's mercy and announces a miracle.

I get the same feeling about "saying grace". If you credit God for providing you with food, aren't you, by implication at least, saying that he is responsible for withholding food from others. This just seems terribly condescending to the poor Ethiopians or whatever. Why don't they deserve to be fed?

If God decides to heal some (a tiny minority) and not others, sorry, but He loses all my respect. If a mother had the power to ease the agony of her suffering daughter, but chose not to, is there really anyone out there who would describe that mother as "good" or "benevolent"? Why is God subject to different standards? One might expect Him to be subject to even more rigid standards....