Great religious falsehoods

That sounds good. And it reminds me, in all the recent turmoil about our government torturing people, I did think of a valid reason for torture.Every day, someone should take a pair of shoes, enter Richard Reid's cell, and beat the tar out of him. (That's not serious, but I do think it is humerous)

That doesn't necessarily mean that god is subject to science. He could purposely not answer prayers when people are "testing" him.Also, I'm not convinced by your argument because, yeah prayer can be scientifically tested, but prayer is not god. You can't buy beer in those counties because it is illegal to sell beer in those counties. The poeple of those counties have the right to make it illegal to sell beer in their county. All you did was avoid my questions and dodge the support for my position.You're just as bad as the people you're bitching about. Its called hypocracy.

So you're going to bitch about all the bad things the Catholics did and then allow torture if it supports your personal opinion on the way things should be.Wow, you really are a hypocrite.

That post was in response to: (just on the slight chance, Richard Reid is the "Shoe Bomber" that tried to blow up a jet over the Atlantic with a bomb in his shoe. The result is that we must all take off our shoes at the airport for screening.)You also need remedial lessons in comprehensive reading. The behavior you have exhibited in this thread is some of what rational people have such difficulties dealing with, and a large part of why our society is having such difficulties. I have seen some of your posts in other threads and the behavior is consistent what the posts here. I’ll not respond to any more of your posts until they demonstrate a reasonable comprehension of reality.

Duplicate post. Edited by Admin, : Add note at top, hide content.

I'm not sure that he'd have to go out of his way to do so. He would know which way he was going to go long 'before' anyone got around to figuring to run a prayer experiment.I don't think there's much point in trying to form a caricature of how God operates based on a time-based existance. If you're missing out on wholesale dimension(s) available to him and inconceivable to you, caricature is all you can assume yourself to be doing.But as far as your question: why would he 'hide'? goes. The answer is fairly straightforward to my mind. If he made himself empirically available then you would have to believe in his existance. And if he doesn't want that you have to believe in his existance then he must 'hide' his existance from you in that way.

So, you can't refute my arguments.

Test post.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Another test post.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Yet another test post.Okay, I think this thread is working now.Edited by Admin, : Test edit function.

Was this particular thread a problem? I had trouble the other thread I have been posting to.
Thanks for the attention.Edit: Well, that posted right away. Major improvement.
Thank you.Edited by jag, : verify operation.

The empirical evidence is against the notion that empirical evidence leads to popular acceptance. People's beliefs do not follow empirical evidence, and, here in the USA, at least, a lot of times, quite the reverse is true. I don't see how the existence of empirical evidence makes it so anybody "has to believe in" anything.Or, were you suggesting that God was selectively targeting us empiricists? Why would He want to target us?

---

Darwin loves you.

Jag, your entire premise is flawed. It has been pointed out to you many times that prayer is not God. People praying for money, a promotion, or other “worldly” goods, and not getting it, does not prove that there is no God. When people pray for comfort, they often get it (this could be a placebo effect, but you can’t actually prove that). Also, I know people who claim to have been given money, job opportunities, or other physical needs, after praying for it. I don’t see how you could prove that their prayers were not involved in that.When I broke my arm, my father prayed that it would be healed properly. My arm healed properly. I’m not superstitious enough to say that God was actively mending my arm, but nobody actually examined and tested my body’s repair systems directly, so, technically, scientifically, I can’t say that it was actually my immune system, and not God, that sutured my bones back together. Only parsimony allows me to do this.Incidentally, I think it was just my body’s normal healing response, but that’s not the point, is it?You should also acknowledge that your statement, "there is no evidence that any deity has been exerting any effect upon this world" is based upon the unsupportable premise that God's acts will appear as anomalies in an otherwise empirically-testable continuum of “normal” events. Keep in mind that insinuating that God has to act outside the laws of physics indicates that He didn't make the laws good enough in the first place. There can be reasons for restricting beer, jag. Don’t thousands of people get killed every year because some people had too much beer? Granted, the beer itself isn’t the problem, but rather, the people who weren’t responsible enough to designate a driver or not play with guns when their blood-alcohol level reached 0.08%. If your county (population: 27,891) had 223 beer-related deaths last year (approximately one death for every 150 people), and you wanted to stop it, what would you do? You could give mandatory “responsibleness” tests that determined how many beers each individual would be allowed to drink. Or, you could post a police officer at each bar to make sure no drunk people were driving or playing with guns. What county has those kind of resources? It’s much easier to just outlaw beer. If you set the bar low, you don’t have to try to tailor the law to individuals*. That will probably cut down on the amount of drunk drivers and drunk gunners, and, consequently, cut down on the number of people killed by drunk people. Isn’t that a good thing? Doesn’t it make sense to try to cut down on the number of people who get killed? This is a matter of priorities: the counties have determined that the right to buy beer does not supercede in importance the 223 lives they could statistically save.Now, if they were to say you can't buy strawberry-flavored ice cream or hershey bars with almonds in them, I would be a bit suspicious of ulterior, irrational motives in the decision-making process.*I dislike this concept as much as you probably do, but you can’t seriously argue that it doesn't make sense.

---

Darwin loves you.

Should we consider the bible evidence for the existence of God?

Rebuke of Brian's Folly:Quote: "The flood has been disproved."Rebuke: I (Sidney Williams) saw "the banks of the Flood etched into the Himalayas" on NBC hosted by Tom Brokaw (an Atheist).An airplane had filmed the "banks of the flood" several thousand feet above sea level.This was a great discovery and should have been promoted worldwide, but the Atheists suppressed the good news.The evidence is still there for anyone concerned with truth.By contacting NBC's news bureau, one may learn where this was, and when.Now then, "Where is your proof there was no flood"?sl33w