Have you ever wonder about the existent of GOD?

Going to continue ranting about how I'm wrong and not explain the things i asked you to explain? Thought so.

I think the problem isn't with me accepting something, It's with you accepting it. I have proven that not only is there a better rule than yours, But i also went as far as to prove why your rule is flawed. I guess we are at the bit now where you no longer try to prove you are right, You simply continue stating it without reason.

tut tut, You go to hell for lying, you liar. I clearly said i would accept the findings of the study, But i would not accept the assumption that god was responsible because the study could offer no evidence that this was the case. All the study could do is say whether prayer had an effect, Not what the cause of that effect was.

 

It seems that any explanation I give is tossed away by stOx and then you ask me to explain again. I even quoted a famous atheist named Ingersoll and even that is not enough. I even used his own words to show the absolute superiority of the Golden Rule and you say I haven't proven anything.

Back to the study, again you say you would accept if people were healed and yet you would not accept that if was because of the existence and intervention of God. I think that would be an oximoron. Well, I believe the study that says those who were prayed for were healed, YET I don't accept they were healed because of God. I accept the evidence but I don't accept what the evidence implies.

I look at a painting and I understand there was a painter involved but I don't accept the painter painted the painting. That is how much sense you make when you say you would accept its findings but not its implications.

 

Your logic is baffling. So because ingersoll is an atheist and i'm an atheist i'm supposed to agree with everything he says? You forget, We aren't a brainwashed cult, We, Unlike you, Are able to come to independent conclusions. I'm sure if ingersoll has read my reasoning he would agree with me, Or at least acknowledge that what i'm saying makes sense. My rule is superior, For the reasons i have previously given. You know, the reasons you constantly fail to address.

Explain to me how your "golden rule" doesn't allow me to do something to someone else based on the fact that it is something i would like them to do to me? You have to concede that this is exactly what the rule says. Do to others as you would have them to do to you. regardless if they want you to or not. If i want them to burn me with cigarettes your rule allows me to do it to them also, On the grounds that it's something i want them to do to me.

the evidence does in no way imply that god would have been the cause of the effect. Evidence would only suggest that the prayer had an effect. Why do you constantly rely on leaps in logic? This is all hypothetical though, Because the study was done and the study (the biggest of it's kind ever) proved that prayer has absolutely zero effect.

I would word it differently. I see there is a painting but there is no evidence that it was painted by a specific painter, Though i do accept that something or someone put the paint on the canvas. (there was something that caused paint to go on a canvas, But no evidence of what it was). The only evidence is that there is paint on canvas. Do you even know what evidence means?

You are saying; I see there is a painting, there must have been a painter, His name was steve jones. Even though there is no evidence that steve jones even exists, Let alone if he is a painter or not. You are making assumptions and leaps in logic. That is not evidence.

 

I wish I could reply like you do to every quotation between the quotes. I don't know how to do that so I will rely on my limited computer knowledge.

Again, from everything you said I noticed there is a determined outcome, which is to not conceed anything under any circumstance. Conceeding something is a sign of weakness in your mind. This is my "leap of logic". Just like you "refuted" the example with the painting or if the study worked against the point you wanted to prove. Which I admit (again) the study if correct pointed to at least the opposite of my belief. Again I didn't see the study so I have to base my belief in this case on what other people are saying. Just like your name is Jack for example. You don't know that for a fact but you believe that because of what a piece of paper (your birth certificate, which could have been falsified we don't know) says.

I don't think that Jesus was much of a lawyer and certain things that he said were as clear as day. So he didn't have to make sure everything was interpreted right. For example when he said "Do unto others" there is no point in debating who these others would be. Would "they" mean Germans, Americans, Palestinians, dogs, etc. Or would it simply mean "others". I don't think we need to contact a lawyer. I mean come on, use your God given common sense. Or just your common sense since you are not a religious dude. After all even Mark Twain said: "It ain't the things that I don't understand about the Bible that bother me. It is the things that I do understand."

So this rule do unto others gives you an obligation to do good not to just simply avoid the negative not to do. You see someone in need you help them, you do good. Doesn't mean you just don't harm them.

So "others" I think refers to sane folks and sane requests not fetishes or things nut cases or psychopaths do. I think this time my logic is not jumping ahead.

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.

 

It doesn't say it only refers to sane requests. it says do to others as you would have them to do to you. If it was meant to mean only good things then it should have said so. But then "good" is objective and what is good to one person may not be good for another, So you could still end up, By following that rule, Doing something to someone which they don't like.

if you want to quote blocks of text paste the text between quote tags, Without spaces.
[quote ]text here[/ quote]

 

My view of what you said is if you torture the grammar long enough it will confess to anything.

If a doctor gives you a pill to take with water, I don't think he needs to give you additional instructions: "Make sure it's not sea water. Make sure it's not boiling water. Make sure the water is clean. Make sure the water is not contaminated." Sometimes you got to use the common sense.

I will try the [quote ]text here[/ quote]

 

If you have to make assumptions regarding the meaning of a rule, It can hardly be described as being perfect. As with most of the bible, People can take it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Or rather, They can take it to mean whatever facilitates their agenda. My rule is better. Find a flaw in it.

 

God doesn't exist but Aliens do

 

English isn't his strong suite, especially grammar, just look at all his posts and the never ending arguments he has had - the funniest one is "your military that rapes" thread, you got to read the whole thing to see just how impossibly stubborn to learning he is.

 

Ingersoll is not the pope. Every atheist is an atheist due to his or her own personal choice, and so has his or her own personal beliefs.

to continue the metaphor, this is your view of the world: There is a large chunk of obsidian in a building. A stranger comes up to you and says 'this is a human head. My friend told me. To you, at first, it would have seemed to be just a rock, but if you look closely, you see something that could be a nose, things that might be ears, etc. Then, after a 5 mionute look, you tell your friend/family member how you saw the most wonderful scupture of a head by leonardo davinci

 

I think it's good to question the existence of God. It's good to question everything. Then when you come to an answer it will be your own.

 

Ive questioned his existence, I came out believing.

 

When Jesus came accross demon possesed dudes he cast the demon spirits out of them. He did not reason with the nut cases. You can see this from reading the Bible. Hence we can deduce he was talking to sane people so his golden rule is still flawless (except to those without the power to reason).

 

For any rule to be flawless it must contain no flaw - even in the case of those who use strict meanings or are 'nut cases' as you so... put it.

 

What if, for example, I am someone else.I like to (there are people like this.) be preached to about religeon and god and jesus etc. Now I go around, and assume that everyone likes that, and say psalms and sermons to everyone. Now I'm me. someone (I know this is taking it a bit far, but this is my interpertation) comes up to me on the street, and starts preaching to me. I am a firm athiest, so it is all nonsense to me. do I need to continue?

On another note, though, why bother arguing about this? We all know that The athiests/agnostics won't be convinced, and neither will the theists.

 

This is arguing for the sake of arguing. This preacher dude won't kill you with his preaching. By the way, in the Bible it does say in Luke 10;10 not to bother with those who don't want to listen.

Besides, just like you said, this is your interpretation. And what a mighty damage someone can do to you if they preach or sing psalms.

 

That does, In no way, Support your assumption that nobody would misunderstand the "golden rule". All you are doing, In true christian style, Is quoting scripture and telling us what jesus supposedly done because you are realising that you are out of your depth.

 

No, I am simply saying Jesus only addressed sane people, people who can use their common sense. And I'll tell you why. In the book of proverbs it says to criticise the wise and he will become even wiser, but don't criticise a fool because he will hate you.

So, since Jesus followed the Bible and he addressed sane people next time you think of the golden rule remember that.

What do you mean "Jesus supposedly done." I don't understand this one bit.

By the way, I heard of atheists on their dying bed crying out to Jesus and to God, but I NEVER heard of a Christian on his dying bed regretting he wasn't a member of the atheist club.

 

So tell me, Exactly where is it that they restrict the purchase of bibles to only smart people? Anyone can buy a bible, Anyone can read it and anyone can come to their own conclusion about what the words mean. So if any old nut case can buy a bible, And the rule (like i proved) could be misunderstood, How can it be "perfect"? Simple answer: It can't.

There as much evidence that jesus ever existed as there is that harry potter existed. They are nothing more than characters in a book. And the fact that not a single person wrote about this "jesus" while he was alive and instead only put pen to paper hundreds of years after speaks volumes. Here we supposedly have someone walking on water, Performing miracles on a daily basis, coming back from the dead and floating up in to heaven and not a single person thought to write about it at the time? Very strange.

All that proves is that people are most likely to turn to religion as a last resort when they have absolutely nothing left. Hardly a glowing endorsement for religion; "religion, The last hope for people with nothing left to do but die".

Also, What makes you think they were crying out to your god? out of the thousands of gods created, Why yours?