So I got in trouble

[Drich]

I have to have faith for that to register to me as a legitimate question. How do you not get that.

Do you have the money to buy the car you want? would you like to have the money to buy the car you want?

What if I said I would give anyone who asks the money needed to buy the car they wanted, no questions asked. all they had to do is follow and do the 3 things i asked.

Then lets say 1/2 a dozen people got the cars they wanted, through my deal, talked about it and shared pics with you, but you did not believe i would give you this money for the car you wanted.

Does your purity to your method of reasoning prevent you from asking me a simple question? to even see what the conditions were? Or do you ask the question and follow the bread crumbs i leave you?

You seem obstinate in your insistence that I haven't.

Then it should be easy for you to tell me more about these bread crumbs i speak of. How did they manifest what did they look like?
How did you follow them? Know if you can not give me a legitmate description of your specific bread crumbs then understand my 'obstinance' is well founded.

Guess he doesn't want me trying to find him, then.

If you are too proud to even ask, then no He doesn't want you to find Him.

There is nothing intentional about my methodology. I don't dismiss faith in God because I don't want it, but because it has demonstrated itself to be useless to me as it has produced none of the promised results, not just for me personally, but for anything external to myself.

what were your promised results and what manifested?

Sufficient proof for me would be God putting in an appearance in such a way that his presence can be empirically verified by people who don't have pre-existing faith.

How would one empirically verify God? what would that process consist of?

I have faith only in things that are demonstrably true or likely to be true because they depend on demonstrable evidence.

That's not true at all. Do you remember our conversation on the stegasaurus? Do you believe that animal existed? based on what? based on ignorance, or rather the persumption that because accedamia says it is true, that this animal as postured in our museums existed that way. That is blind unverified faith. again this is that mustard seed God has given you. you can lie to yourself and say your beliefs are based on facts, when if fact you beliefs are based on faith in the popular understandings of man.. I say that because the facts are out there, but they are ignored in favor of popular theories/Faith.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-19254-pa...tegasaurus Start @ post 175 i leave a lot of facts that point to your faith in things like the stegosaurus.

That is astronomically less faith than is required to believe in something that none of my senses, logic or reason identifies as different from a fictional character.

Oh, the irony..

As I mentioned just before, you're mistaken. I did not choose to place my faith in science. Science works. It produces tangible results. And it does so whether or not I have faith in it.

and now after I've highlighted your FAITH in science?

Even so, that doesn't mean I have faith in all of science. There are plenty of hypotheses that I have no faith in, such as the multiverse hypothesis. Is it impossible? No more than God is. That isn't enough for me to make a positive statement of faith about it. I need solid results before I give it my faith.

What about dinosaurs? Evolution?
Faith in that?
The stegosaurus is one example of 'science' collecting bone scraps from several different digs and putting them together in the order they think they go in. Most of this was done in the mid to late 1800's.. Is your faith in science so strong that you do not question the work of men who took fossil fragements from several points across the continant or even the world, and then constructed an animal from said scrap piles?

Someone keeps bring up a word phrase when I said he should A/S/K.. I can't remember what it is.. It has something to do with having a vision or direction and then seeking evidence to fill or support this foregone conclusion.. It's unverfiable something.. Or maybe unfalsefiable maybefacts or theorys or something...

Maybe the one who keeps mis using this phrase will see an oppertunity here to lable your beliefs for me..

Your faith is belief without evidence. That is the faith that is completely missing in me, the faith I literally cannot have in anything at all.

Faith is belief without evidence. I do not sport a faith. None of us have to. All we need is the faith to A/S/K and we will be given the evidence to establish and maintain a relationship.

There is on thing in which I have faith without evidence, and it is the faith that makes me believe I'm on one side of the solipsistic barrier. That is faith without evidence. But, why not? For one, I have nothing to lose, and for another, it's still not the same as your faith, because I'm not going to sit here and insist that I'm certain about it. I'm not. I simply operate under the assumption because I've not been faced with a good reason not to.

Faith is not what I am selling here. Faith in God is the key that opens the flood gates to everything you will ever want or need in a personal interactive relationship.

It is as I suspected. You are too sure that you are correct to ever entertain the idea that you have interpreted everything incorrectly.

Indeed. It would be the same as The president asking you over for a dinner at the white house. You guys talk and have a few and really hit it off, then become long term friends..
In short you have a personal relationship with Him that lasts long after he is in office. Then another adminstration looks to smear your buddies name. they then proceed to gather benign evidence that really does not speak for or against anything your president buddy did. But the spin it to look like he was a bad president..

Now. given your relationship with your president buddy, is there anything they can say or do with this netural evidence that will change what you know of him? what if the whole country turns on him, will you ignore years of your friendship just because everyone else has faith in a very specific interpertation of 'evidence?' What if yoou knew they did not have a complete picture? What if the rest of the country wanted to hang your president friend, would you stand by him or step aside?

That is not true for me. You could be 100% correct. If you are, there should be evidence sufficient to satisfy the standards I have described.

There are. That is why people like me still exist. Why there are those who would be mamed or killed rather than give up their beliefs.

Your methods fall miserably short of that, though you appear incapable of being honest about the reasons why that is.

It's not my method brother. It is the ONLY One God offers.

He does so, because one must Humble himself before God. Humility is what God wants first. without it God will stay hidden from you.

---

If your in over your head at any point you do not need a reason to not respond, just don't respond. I don't hold it against you. Besides I'm occupied with the half a dozen different direction this thread is Going to even remember what specifically the tyre thing was actually about.

I had a reason to respond, that being that when one considers those groups that would have an unbiased approach to appraising a given text, apologists for that text aren't generally considered, there. It'd be like if you were fact checking an autobiography, and the only person you interviewed was the author; there's a bias there towards preserving the claims made in the text, irrespective of the actual truth of them.

And that, by the way, is not even taking into account the track record apologists have for lying out their asses.

Your approach is that of one who believes God will be static through out this process. This is not the case. When you do things right (Follow HIS instructions) He is the that will interact with you. Not me, the writter of your autobiography or anyone else. I'm not selling a religion here. I am trying to put you on a track that bring you directly before God. If God does not have the power or inclination to follow up on what He has promised then he is no god and not worthy of worship.

---

You follow up my pointing out that you are playing word games with more word games. That's really sad.

Again looking is not asking. If the keeper of many great words and works will not acknoweledge this by insisting this a word game, then my faith in the intelect of soceity will fade fast.

---

Then he needs to contact me.

and He will if you can follow His instructions.

I've already made the effort. You don't ask evidence to reveal itself. It's either there for me to find or it's not.

You made your own effort, you did not make the effort He told you, you must make. If you had you would still be making this effort.

There are no self-important reasons not to ask questions of a being that I have zero compelling reasons to believe exists. Perhaps you just completely forgot to read everything I said in my previous posts about this.

Questions is not the issue. God invites all questions even those others identify as hertical.
The Issue is inorder to receive an answer one must first Humble himself to God.

Telling me that I have to start out with faith is telling me that there's nothing to have faith in.

That is what religion says. Christ says something completely different. He told us if we have faith of a mustard seed and place it in Him, we will be able to move mountains of doubt.
The idea being these mountains being an insurmountable obstical.. (Your philosphy/reasoning) These mountains as you will not move on the basis of more faith. They move because you have the knoweledge and connection with God make them move.

You're telling me that it's not about confirming biases, but you're telling me that if I don't develop a bias, I'll never get any results.

What if someone in here/forums was a famous actor.. And that person over time confided in you and told you, and confirmed everything he told you to your complete satasification. He also said he would do this for anyone else you could bring to him that demonstrated they were also of good character.. for the purpose of inviting that select group to the oscars or something like that.. You ask what makes one worthy? He tells you, your friends must do 3 simple things.. and you try and get your friends to do the things he deemed 'worthy.'
You tell them all about him, but He will not confirm anything to the mob of resentful angry members here. Not until the do the three simply things he asked them to first do.

Your just one who carries a message. The actor set the conditions, and provides the evidence. Your friends if they want to be apart of what the actor offers must comply to his wishes. Just because he will not comply with a mob of angry people, does not mean you are or have set up a confirmation bias. for again He is the providing the evidence, at which point your friends can decide for themselves what they want to believe.

---

Be glad too, but From what post did you get this?

My bad. It was a Rasetsu comment, not yours. What do you mean be glad?

You still working on responding to the rest of my long post, or is what you replied with all I got to work with here?

I would be happy/glad to explain anything I have said.

Still working