Doctor X

Ojuice5001:

One proves quite sufficient. Should I attempt to drop a rock on a country-western music fan and said rock stops rought 2.37 inches above his mullet and hovers I would, methinks, have to explain the event. I may have to rethink current physics.

If he is not that he become irrelevant. There are only Five Possible Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] The first, of course, is that no gods exist.

If you argue for a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omni[Insert your adjective here.--Ed.] then he becomes both incompetent and irrelevant--you cannot depend on him.

Nevertheless, like said rock experiment, you would be left with a connundrum of sorts. As noted previously, it would prove just as easy for a deity with the power to prevent:

to have saved the remaining children. That he did not suggests an injustice which argues for evil as another choice.

I generally use another example--a rather slow and unpleasant childhood cancer--since it removes most of the ridiculous post hoc rationalizations.

Now:

Other than the abomination that is country-western music, evidence indicates to the contrary, especially if one considers Sept. 14, 1437.

Ipse dixit.

Argumentum ad populem and equally wrong. "Billions" may believe the world is flat. Fortunately, their belief does not alter the universe.

Nevertheless, you have yet to provide your own "rational" solution to the little connundrum of the Perniciously Perspicaciously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Problem [See the "alternative endings" on the DVD.--Ed.] You have ducked the issues, of course, which you remain free to do so. However, you cannot then expect anyone to take your preaching seriously.

I never implied nor wished a title of "better" though an attempt to understand the world by actually confronting these issues does, perhaps, make me more "rational."

--J.D.

crisisGirl

dude, aren't you the same guy who trolls this board trying to impose your christianity on ppl?

noone is forcing you to read the posts here. noone has outlawed thanking god, or put up an atheist manifesto in any public building. atheism consists of a nonbelief in god. by definition, if god is not real, belief in god is incorrect. if belief in god is incorrect, thanking god is irrational. having a dissenting belief, including the opinion that god is not real, does not constitute harrassment of any form until that beleif is imposed on others. that simply hasn't happened here.

Magus55

Trolling this board? I'm active in more posts than most atheists. I'd hardly classify myself as a troll.

Doctor X

--J.D.

crisisGirl

.o(dammit - i really need to get a dictionary!)

or perhaps i'm quoting the wrong person?

being active in posts isn't the point i'm making here. i've seen ppl easily create dozens posts containing nothing but obscenities. that didn't mean that they were being any less rude because they were highly active.

don't you come to these boards to proselytize about christianity? (for the record, BAC, i don't refer to defending christians as ppl as proselytizing. that is different, and is necessary from time to time.) the point i'm making is that, considering the source, your statement is kind of hypocritical, no? (perhaps i am thinking of someone else - i'm pretty new here - i could be wrong.)

noone is forcing their opinion on you (or anyone else) here. noone is even forcing you to be here. there's nothing wrong with believing that thanking god is irrational, so long as it isn't imposed on others. the reverse applies as well. i have no objection to any religion, so long as it isn't imposed on me, even though i know that all religions believe that atheism is incorrect.

in other words, my language sucks, but i'm trying to make a distinction between dissent and harrassment. can someone clarify better please?

Calzaer

If all he can say about his tenure is he's been "active in posts", then congrats, Magus! You're a well-respected active non-troll just like Hunzington and Pat Kelly!

[edit: And don't forget Mertiocrat!]

wade-w

Magus:

Like RBAC, you missed the point entirely. The woman in question did not thank god for her wieght loss, she attributed the weight loss itself to god.

Many atheists don't give a damn what you believe, Magus. We just want you to keep your religion to yourself. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for most of your ilk. I think the evidence is quite clear that given the opportunity, many xian sects would happily establish a theocracy, and ruthlessly stifle any dissent.

Magus55

If non believers don't keep their lack of belief to themselves, and keep trying to remove Christianity from the world, we will be stepping in. Just like you want an entire atheist world, we want an entire Christian world ( with an added bonus of all of humanity getting to go to Heaven, and assuming Heaven and God do exist, atheism is the dumbest choice any human could make in such a situation).

According to the OP, the woman never said she attributed it ALL to God, she just said through prayer, she was able to lose weight. That could easily mean prayer gave her the motivation to stick with her routine. Prayer doesn't always result in a "miracle", it is usually something more subtle like motivation, inspiration, guidance etc.

crisisGirl

ROFLMAO!!!

arent you the one here bothering other ppl?

btw - what if the muslims are right? then christianity's pretty stupid too -eh? there are more muslims in the world than christians. think about it.

*i'm not wearing a birkah (sp?) either*

i believe the word for this would be "projection."

who is "we"? actually, most of the christians i've met aren't bigots.

a wise person once said

wade-w

Magus, most atheists are not trying to "remove christianity from the world." I've never heard of an atheist missionary! I have to admit that I think a world without superstition would be a better place, but that's just my opinion. I have absolutely no intention of trying to bring that about. Very few atheists would. Are you talking about church-state seperation? Asking that the government actually enforce the constitution is not anywhere near the same thing as trying to remove christianity from the world. In fact, the same clause that says that the current wording of the pledge is illegal protects your right to be a christian. As it should.

That's all I am going to say on that topic, if you wish to discuss it further, start a new thread, as its off-topic here. I will be more than happy to discuss it then.

The OP said that "god answered my prayers". I suppose she could have meant it in the way you say, though.