Did They Not Pray Hard Enough

[ronedee]

Because you and your theist friends won't stop bringing it up[religion]. This goes for any topic: someone brings it up, then the discussion ensues. So here we are to discuss it.

Last look...this is the Christian section of the forum?

If you don't have something that's clearly defined, or, in your words, if you can't put God into a box, then this thing cannot be discussed honestly, because neither side will know what the discussion is about.

Dude #1: I wanna talk about Bigfoot!
Dude #2: Sweet. What do you know about him?
Dude #1: I dunno, it just sounds cool...and he's OUT there, man!
Dude #2: I guess I don't know much about it either...not much to discuss, is there?
Dude #1: Guess not, dude. Later, yo!
Dude #2: Yeah, man! Later!

I'm still wondering about what you are trying to say here?! I mean really now....God and Bigfoot? Wouldn't this be akin to calling a mannequin an atheist?

That's right! And then you put that person's advice to the test. Something that's demonstrably true should have no issues with repeatable results. We know when an expert is right when his/her words can be demonstrated as true.

And how do YOU test? By saying "I know"? Even if you don't [really]? Or, in light that you never tried something yourself?

But, as long as the "personally unproven" experience/experiment doesn't envolve God.... thats fact?!

In other words: you are willing to take unproven "scientific" theory and concepts as (pardon the pun) gospel... yet religious theory and concept is dead wrong! Hypocristy?

I dunno, ronedee. Three different people pointed out the flaw in your analogy. If we failed to understand, it's only because you failed to present something that could be understood the way you wanted it to.

Three people does not a jury make. [as I said to you before] That is why I don't like to use "analogies". But, it is handy...right Sasquach?

[Something completely different]

[Minimalist]

Last look...this is the Christian section of the forum?

Yes and this is the proper place to discuss your sad reliance on silly bullshit.

[Bad Writer]

Because you and your theist friends won't stop bringing it up[religion]. This goes for any topic: someone brings it up, then the discussion ensues. So here we are to discuss it.

Last look...this is the Christian section of the forum?

Indeed it is. haitherenicetomeetyou...I still don't see why you're upset that we're talking about Religion. Or...maybe you're just mad that we don't believe in it. Yes, that must be it.

I mean really now....God and Bigfoot? Wouldn't this be akin to calling a mannequin an atheist?

No...?

Let me take two steps back and reiterate what I was saying because...well...this concept was clearly lost on you. Comparing God and Bigfoot is as easy as comparing Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Why? Because we're talking about two things that are made-up claims. People say they have evidence for the existence of God the same way other say they have evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Both claims end up as empty as a horse trough at high noon. This comparison doesn't get any more basic.

Though I do want to hear why you brought mannequins into this. Please. Do tell all.

And how do YOU test? By saying "I know"? Even if you don't [really]? Or, in light that you never tried something yourself?

That's not at all how a test works, and you're being dishonest if you really are trying to troll that load of crap around here.

As is the case with many things in Science, we don't have to test every theory ourselves because the scientific community has already done so. Nothing is published in science without peer review and reproduced results. That's all there is to it.

Now, if you're saying that taking the scientific community at their word is a faith-based action, then you've likewise implied that the Scientists are dishonest with their work, or that there's some conspiracy at hand to spread misinformation in place of facts. I'm sorry, but I'd rather leave those kinds of proceedings to the theists, so please leave science out of all your conspiracy theories, if you will.

[Minimalist]

Nothing is published in science without peer review and reproduced results.

And in religion...nothing is published with it!

[Anomalocaris]

Nothing is published in science without peer review and reproduced results.

And in religion...nothing is published with it!

And what can you possibly gain from such peer as might join in your religion?

[Minimalist]

Ever heard the phrase: One lies and the other swears to it?

Typical of religious assholes especially when you start tossing miracle stories around.

[Brakeman]

I dunno, ronedee. Three different people pointed out the flaw in your analogy. If we failed to understand, it's only because you failed to present something that could be understood the way you wanted it to.

Three people does not a jury make. [as I said to you before] That is why I don't like to use "analogies". But, it is handy...right Sasquach?

Analogies exemplify a relationship. One can criticize an analogy that purported relationship does not follow the factors given, or that it is apt to the discussion. The former describes our criticisms of your christian analogies. There is nothing wrong or inherently weak in discussing analogies, but you simply mustn't lose sight of the relationships that you are attempting to describe.

Your signature line states, "To the believer no explanation is necessary. To the unbeliever no explanation is possible."

I think this best highlights your frustration. With this comment you have forgotten that all christians were previously unbelievers who had been moved, usually by their trusted peers' propagandic comments, to believe.
We push christians to discuss what convinces them to believe in the old mid-eastern story.

If your signature line were true, there would be no christians in the first place.