Shraf, you don't like the way God does things. Talk with him about it.
Why would one talk to someone who doesn't exist? Or at least who doesn't give any overt sign of existing?
Most who don't believe in God (which doesn't include me, though I don't believe in the God of the Bible) don't carry all the emotional baggage with them that you seem to think they do. It's almost as if you think we know that you believers are right, but we're intent on defying God anyway because we've been seduced by science, so we skulk around with frequent looks upward under fear of being smote at any moment. But it isn't like that.
It's more an attitude of bemusement at the gullibility of those willing to embue credibility in any claim supportive of God, no matter how cockamamie. Faith healings, crying statues, Jesus images on store windows, it's all really the same cock and bull story. But if believing this stuff makes some people feel better then who's to say there's anything wrong with it.
AbE: Of course, anyone with a serious illness (e.g., cancer, emphysema, etc.) who seeks out only faith healers for treatment is taking serious risks. By providing reasons for people not to seek professional medical care, faith healers can do serious harm.
Where people like me get emotional about it is when they witness creationist efforts to have religiously based views represented as science. And we're only emotional about the people trying to do this, not about their fictional God. Hating something or someone that doesn't exist would not make much sense.
You choose not to believe, and choose to say hateful things about the Lord who does those healings.
I guess I have the same reaction as Schraf. If someone who wasn't a child asked me in all seriousness if I believed in the Pink Dragon of Elindor who protects the good and punishes the wicked, I would probably say, "No, of course not," or perhaps, "You're kidding, right?" But that doesn't mean I hate the Pink Dragon of Elindor.
If believing or prayer made a difference then fundamentalist Christians would be some of the healthiest and longest-lived people on earth, but they're not. For example, if the efficacy of prayer had a scientific foundation then it should be amenable to double-blind studies where neither the researchers nor the subjects know who was prayed for and who was not. So far such studies fall into two categories: inconclusive and flawed.
This message has been edited by Percy, 12-30-2005 02:51 PM