Are you religious/ superstitious?

[ThomasSoerensen]

I'm confused by your confusing posts - are you or are you not pushing your own views on religion and values on your own children?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1244476

[ThomasSoerensen]

I will apologise on his behalf. I am sorry that you are mentally ill

[GreenLabel]

your error is to believe everything atheists say, you don't give Christians that kind of benefit of the doubt

You're right - I don't, but I don't regard that as an error. Because the evidence they use to back up their assertions isn't strong enough. There's the concept of the burden of proof to consider - you assert that there's a God, it's up to you to provide the proof for this claim. From what I've seen so far, the evidence isn't convincing.

[contractor79]

You're right - I don't, but I don't regard that as an error.

This post proves your bias. What a silly fool believing everything atheists say.

[GreenLabel]

This post proves your bias. What a silly fool believing everything atheists say.

Erm, saying that I don't give Christians the same benefit of the doubt isn't the same as saying that I believe anything that any atheist says.

You're really not very good at this, are you?

[xoggoth]

GreenLabel

Dont waste your time. You won't get any sensible arguments from this guy. Actually, you won't get any sort of argument at all.

[sasguru]

That's why I said go read a book. You seem to be just making assumption without proper investigation of historical sources, I seem no point parroting something you could read yourself from someone more educated than I.

Please can you point me to a book by a reputable historian that documents the supernatural events you insist have happened.

If 2 blind people were prayed for and one spontaneously regained sight, it doesn't count because not 100% of prayers are answered?

I agree that would be a remarkable supernatural event since it would reverse the laws of biology and hence physics. Please can you point to one reputably documented occasion this has happened. Thanks.

Your argument seems to be on the nature of the prayer, not the "sucess ratio". It's simple logic that if all prayers were answered, there would be no room for faith. What you pray for might not align with what God wants, it's not described as a slot-machine except by idiotic American TV Preachers.

Let me make myself clear. If you prayed for every outcome you wanted, the fact that some outcomes were favourable would be better ascribed to simple statistical probability, rather than the efficacy of prayer. If this is not obvious to you I'm afraid the level of your argument is now bumping along the bottom with Chico's.

[Mich the Tester]

Is it not possible and reasonable to hold the teachings of Jesus Christ, and by extension, Jesus himself in considerable reverence while not believing in a supernatural being? Could a person who often looks at Christ's teachings for moral guidance, while not believing in God, possibly be seen as a 'christian'?

[doodab]

Is it not possible and reasonable to hold the teachings of Jesus Christ, and by extension, Jesus himself in considerable reverence while not believing in a supernatural being? Could a person who often looks at Christ's teachings for moral guidance, while not believing in God, possibly be seen as a 'christian'?

Didn't he teach that god exists and should be worshipped though? Doesn't that mean that you would have to disregard at least some of his teaching?

[EternalOptimist]

Didn't he teach that god exists and should be worshipped though? Doesn't that mean that you would have to disregard at least some of his teaching?

aye. Anyone who spouts more about deferential integrity than referential integrity is one to be avoided in my book