Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

That's just wrong.1. He apparently wasn't at all shy of providing evidence for thousands of years, parting seas, sending plagues, burning bushes, curing people, resurrecting people, changing water into wine, feeding 5,000 people with a loaf and a fish etc etc. It's only when people worked out ways of testing stuff objectively that this 'evidence' ceased.2. According to you guys, he 'reveals' himself to you. You call that evidence. You repeatedly tell us that you KNOW he exists for this reason. He's some weird contradictions ain't he?3. He wants me to have faith in what? Why would I choose your god instead of somebody else's without evidence? How can the child born into a remote village in the Atlas Mountains have faith in your god when he's never heard of him?It makes no sense. 1. And the down side of that would be what? That we'd all believe and follow his teaching? You know, like he wants?

Nothing changes about free will because of evidence - people can reject evidence, we see Faith do it here every day. That's just silly. You can believe that a fire will burn you with or without evidence. Sticking your hand in the fire merely confirms it. The facts exist whether you believe in them or not. That's utter nonsense, facts are just facts - truths about our world. Not having facts allows us to think stupid things, having them at least gives us a chance of believing the right things.The idea that knowing truths about our world robs us of free will is the most bizarre thing I've heard you say.ABE Doesn't the fact that god has revealed himself to you personally rob you of your free will to believe in him without evidence?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

We can see the passion but not the reason.Somehow believers think that the more passionate their belief the more persuasive that must be. We see that the more passionate the belief the deeper the delusion and the more the deluded are then prepared to act irrationally on their beliefs.

It's true even if "He" does exist. People blowing themselves up and killing others for their passionately held beliefs is wrong no matter whether "He" exists or not. Correct Oppose him? What a daft idea. Ignore him maybe.But if there was conclusive evidence all rational people would accept whatever it was. One thing I'm absolutely certain about, this worshipping stuff is utter bollox whether "He" exists or not - it's some weird masochistic/power thing that is entirely human in origin. No god would demand people grovel. What possible purpose could it serve? It's a primitive human artefact. Laughable.

What does this question mean? Anything?My instinctive answer is 'nobody', but I'm struggling, as usual, to understand your question because your frame of reference is so alien to me.

This stuff must mean something to you because you keep saying stuff like it, but I have no idea what. It sounds like some more than usually garbled form of preachiness, that the audience would just nod to without thinking about it.

As you can see, it's not just me. I doubt that you will. When you get into trouble with an argument, you revert to this kind of random religio-waffle.I was thinking about it in a church today at a funeral. The priest was saying similar stuff. It really made no objective sense, but it had become so normalised that nobody noticed. People get so used to it over the years that they hardly listen to it - it's a rhythm; the ritual is the message, the language is just mood music.But if you actually listen to the words, they carry no actual meaning.

So now that's sorted who we gonna call?

Do you really think that meaningless biblical cant, explains meaningless biblical cant?