Soviet Commu-Facism wrote:Another thing, they may be statistics, but what were the chances that he was going to be related to someone that goes to my church? Those are some pretty impossible statistics.
The chances of that happening to a person who was related to someone from
your church? Approximately: [(Number of people related to members of your church) * (average number of cases of that condition causing hospitalization and recovery globally within an average human lifespan)] / (Total global population); probably pretty low, though if it's a common condition and you go to a mega-church of a religion which strongly encourages large families...
The chances of that happening to someone who was related to a church-going person who would spread the story around? Quite a lot more likely, given the sheer number of church-going (or equivalent) people on the planet.
Soviet Commu-Facism wrote:Lastly, you are being hypocritical. You say that I need proof and resources for my claims, and yet you didn't have one for yours?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I claim that I had a turkey sandwich for lunch, that isn't going to require any proof... it's a very ordinary claim. Saying that God personally intervened to keep a relative alive for a few minutes so you could say goodbye, on the other hand, is a lot harder to believe than that family member hanging on through force of will, particularly given that similar things happen for non-Christians.
Soviet Commu-Facism wrote:It was like watching Donnie Darko
(which I never saw) it makes you feel weird
Soviet Commu-Facism wrote:To say every prayer answered is a coincidence is stupid. If they were really coincidences, the majority of them wouldn't have happened.
That's the thing, though... most prayers do go unanswered.
Soviet Commu-Facism wrote:lets think for a minute that there is beyond all doubt a God, scientifically proven and all
Or let's not, since, you know, there isn't even a shred of scientific evidence for God that I've ever heard of. ("I don't know how else it could have happened, so it must be God," doesn't count. That's not scientific.)
UAWC wrote:Abdju wrote:1. Lâ ilâha illallâh, Muḥammadun rasûlullâh. I don't believe it, and I don't accept it as doctrine. I believe there are many gods. Whilst Muhammed may indeed have been a prophet of the Abrahamic god, I do not hold that god to be the only one. Thus, I cannot accept the first pillar.
Do you have some sort of logical basis for this...?
Do you have some sort of logical basis for monotheism? Sorry, but you left yourself open for that one.
Cross-Rhodes wrote:Perhaps it's not that He is silent, but that we are too noisy. The bigger you are, the smaller God gets - metaphorically speaking.
And yet, it would be easily rectified if he would speak directly to humans like he is claimed to have done in the olden days. Unless, of course, he didn't really speak to anyone, which would mean that the Bible was most likely lying (or, at the very least, is so extremely metaphorical that none of it can be trusted as being literal).
Soviet Commu-Facism wrote: That's more than ridiculous.
Coming from the guy who has a patched-together political idea made from mutually-incompatible pieces of three different political and economic systems which you apparently only skimmed over when researching?
Soviet Commu-Facism wrote:The Christian life is one of the hardest lives (if not the hardest) to live because we suffer for our faith.
Yes, such suffering you guys must feel. After all, Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States, where you have no significant discrimination against your religion, and can safely assume that most people you meet will be of the same core religious beliefs as you, and where nearly every federal Congressman (not to mention so many of the Presidents) share your religious views. Oh, woe is you!
And everyone mocks your faith and is suspicious of you!--oh, wait, no, that's the Mormons and Muslims (among others). Oh, well, a few states still have sections of their constitutions that (though unenforceable) claim to prevent you from holding office due to your religious views!--oh, wait, nope again, that's atheists. Oh, oh, but your people have been brutally butchered in the past!--er, wait, no, your people often
did the butchering in the past...
Give it a rest. It's not the hard life. You guys don't have it any significantly worse than anybody else; hell, there's no shortage of people who would gladly trade their lots in life for what you are complaining about.
I've never liked the BCE/CE dating. In my opinion, if they were looking for something to use as an alternative to the Christian dating system, then they should have, you know, picked something else to use as the basis for the dates rather than slapping a new name on the same system. I know a lot of things in history don't have well-defined dates on which they began or ended, but you can't tell me that in all of known human history, there isn't even a single event that is both significant and reasonably well-defined enough to have been used as an alternative.
Turanbirligi wrote:Muravyets wrote:Turanbirligi wrote:a gay cant be moral
Do you have a list of random remarks that you pull these things from?
from my brain
Ah, I guess that explains a lot about your contributions to this thread. Or, rather, your lack thereof.
Seriously, I think it's safe to say you aren't impressing anyone with the small-minded bigotry you've been posting in here.
Cross-Rhodes wrote:The fact that the pilgrims left the "hedonistic" society of Europe to found their own "Christian" nation (which by the way - is in no way similar to the Christianity seen today), is not really debatable. Even secular historians support this, and therefore the dominance of organized Christianity in the Western hemisphere is slightly obvious.
However, the Pilgrims weren't even the first English colonists of the Americas, let alone the first European colonists. Heck, Georgia was originally founded from men released from debtor's prisons to work at the colony; I highly doubt that anyone would be able to make a strong case of it being significantly religious, but it is also one of the the original colonies, just like Massachusetts.
Callisdrun wrote:Coffin-Breathe wrote:Depending on what you prefer for afterlife (severe lifelong worshipping required),
Allah seems to offer some pretty good things (
paradise filled with virgins, aso)
Nobody's ever been able to adequately explain why I should want that.
I believe the common joke is "Wouldn't you rather have a bunch of girls who know what they're doing?"
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:19 pm
I suppose they could always go with 
