From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[Esquilax]

In this case I am simply asking you to show me the golden rule in the Code of Hammurabi..I don't see it in there, could you point it out to me? Let's get down to the point which is that you say the teachings of Jesus appear elsewhere. We can debate the significance of that once the point is established.

Relatively easy: though admittedly the code of Hammurabi phrases the golden rule in terms of retribution rather than reciprocity, teachings much like the golden rule pop up... pretty much everywhere. Confucius said "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself," long before Christ came along, and he was but one of many to do so. Clearly, the teachings of Jesus weren't so brilliant that mere mortals couldn't think of them on their own

Well, let's look at some specific examples; you say the account of Christ is very similiar to other accounts in many, many ways..so let's compare it to the account you feel is most similiar and examine the validity of the point.

You aren't listening: I'm saying various aspects of the Christ story reappear in many different mythologies. Pointing to just one would be ineffective, when the point I'm trying to make is that it's a narrative made from a patchwork of themes that reoccur in every culture's storytelling traditions.

My point isn't that Jesus is a plagiarized fictional character. It's that his story is too uninspired to be taken as literally true based solely on your claim of how wonderfully unique it is.

That isn't what I was trying to say. My theory is, God would have answered the prayers in the same way, with or without the study. He possibly could have just arranged to have the right people in the study to meet the statistical average. Not that he answered the prayers to create the effect, but he simply arranged for the right people to be in the study for the effect to appear.

Isn't that lying, though? When someone goes to so much trouble as to alter the fates of men so that they appear in specific places just so they can give the appearance that something is not true when in fact it is, that's a lie. God can't lie, right?

If you're testing for the God of the bible, He promises you won't find Him that way, because He only allows people to approach Him in faith. So a study like this can never prove or disprove His existence. That's all I am saying and I am not saying it proves anything about the validity of prayer. I am only saying that if you want to know if the God of the bible exists you have to approach Him in faith and a study like this will not help you find Him.

And we get to the meat of the issue: in order for prayer to work, I have to presuppose the being involved exists, and will answer the prayer. Classic confirmation bias.

Sorry, not trying to strawman you here; I am trying to see how you can validate your reasoning without using your reasoning to do it. From what you've said, you are still using your perception. You perceive that the response of reality to your action confirms your perception of reality. My question is, how do you know it is a valid perception?

Listen... don't come in here spouting anything approaching a presuppositional argument, okay? Those are among the most profoundly dishonest arguments one could ever encounter. What you're doing here is rolling back to solipsism, and it's not going to work because... who cares? What is it that you're arguing here? That there's some alternate reality that we aren't seeing? We're still forced to obey the physical laws of such a reality, and so is everyone else, so who cares?

Not to mention, the same question could be leveled at you, just in case you think you can stump anyone with this: you're using your perception of reality too, and in fact that same perception is the only apparatus you have for reading your bible and feeling in your heart that god exists. How do you know yours is a valid perception?