(April 3, 2014 at 9:04 pm)professor Wrote: Not yet.
I did an experiment with microwave water on one and it withered and died but said nothing.

Sounds like maybe you weren't listening very closely

(April 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm)professor Wrote: Blind faith is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing.

That assumes that faith, by definition, is therefore blind. I disagree. I'll just Copy/Paste my reply to discipulus in a different thread:

Quote:Paul defines faith as the "assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, ASV). This is often used to denote belief with no evidence, but that does not seem to be right meaning of the word. We often use the word "faith" as a synonym for "trust." We differentiate between faith and "blind faith." Therefore, faith should involve something we know for certain, unlike blind faith.

This fits the Biblical narrative. Paul himself came to know the truth when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. If this was true, then Paul's faith in any of Jesus' promises was based on his belief that Jesus was real, which was based on his direct experience with Jesus.

Jesus chided Thomas for doubting that he had been resurrected, telling him "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29). And despite this, he did allow Thomas to see him and to put his fingers through the wounds in his hands and side. Judging by his reaction, this experience strengthened Thomas' faith.

Some Christians will tell us that if god were to reveal himself today, that this would deny us free will because we would have no choice to believe. But there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that this is a problem. Paul states that creation is such clear proof of god's existence that to deny him is inexcusable. (Romans 1:18-21) God's intervention in human affairs was common in the OT and NT, yet this is not cause for alarm.

Knowing that god exists, if he makes it plain, would certainly not require faith. Believing that he would do what he proposed would require faith as defined by Paul-- a conviction of things not seen (since they are promises of future action). But believing in god should not be a matter of faith; if he was able to make himself known directly and physically to people for thousands of years, he can do so now without issue. That he does not do so is not a matter of faith, and I don't think we should have faith in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration.

Do atheists display faith? As defined above, yes, I do. I trust in some people to live up to their word if they have shown a habit of being trustworthy. So if a particular person says he is going to the movies on Saturday and will pick me up at noon, I have faith that this will happen. If a less trustworthy person offers the same, my faith may not be as strong in his promise. If a fictional character makes general promises to everyone (or to no one in particular) I am unlikely to have any faith in him at all.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:20 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 5:26 am)max-greece Wrote: My understanding is that God is supposed to withhold that knowledge - which is the point of his demanding faith.

So as to not presume the foundation for your understanding, why do you claim that God withhold's this knowledge and that He demands faith?

I hardly see how believing without justification (faith) fits into anything except in a charlatans' handbook to get you to believe any claim without evidence.

This god you adore withheld the knowledge of good and evil to Adam and Eve according to the story. So how could they be blamed for their actions? They can't be accountable if they have no comprehension of right and wrong.

QT, you seem to be missing something in the Genesis account.
The couple were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Prior to their CHOICE (a familiar word in the U.S.) of eating from that tree- they had NO knowledge of evil, they only had knowledge of good.

The serpent has been offering the same tree to us in different forms ever since.
And we have been making the same choices.

(April 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm)professor Wrote: QT, you seem to be missing something in the Genesis account.
The couple were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Prior to their CHOICE (a familiar word in the U.S.) of eating from that tree- they had NO knowledge of evil, they only had knowledge of good.

The serpent has been offering the same tree to us in different forms ever since.
And we have been making the same choices.

Now, how were they supposed to know that they should do as they're being told, if they didn't know good from bad?

Btw., what is in your opinion a modern serpent+fruit analogy

(April 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm)professor Wrote: QT, you seem to be missing something in the Genesis account.
The couple were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Prior to their CHOICE (a familiar word in the U.S.) of eating from that tree- they had NO knowledge of evil, they only had knowledge of good.

The serpent has been offering the same tree to us in different forms ever since.
And we have been making the same choices.

So ur saying they had no knowledge of evil and were punished because of that... that makes no sense..

(April 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm)professor Wrote: QT, you seem to be missing something in the Genesis account.
The couple were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Prior to their CHOICE (a familiar word in the U.S.) of eating from that tree- they had NO knowledge of evil, they only had knowledge of good.

The serpent has been offering the same tree to us in different forms ever since.
And we have been making the same choices.

Doesn't matter if they have no sense of right and wrong.

It'd be no different than telling a lion not to eat you.

Alex, this is an assumption on my part- they were created with no bias toward good or evil and made a definite choice to follow the words of the snake.
She considered both the fruit of the tree and the words of the devil.

I thought you might ask about the modern scheme.
There are many of them, the Freemasons come to mind, the occult also.
You could look no farther than the upholding of Reason and knowledge found right here on AF.
(I am sure this will go over like a rat sandwich.)

Truth, if God were the monster atheists make Him out to be, you would be correct.
I reject that view.
Their choice brought specific results (I do not recall it being stated as a punishment).