GakFace,
I don’t think that you are listening to papermachesatan. He is saying that miracles, angels, souls, the afterlife, a pot of tea, etc, do not prove god. Mentioning more random crap will not make your point any more clear nor disprove his.
There are many flaw in proving god by association with phenomenon (besides the obvious one that no link can be proven), one of them is that it is rather inconsistent. Z may have gotten sick and recovered many times. Other people will get sick, stay sick for years and die a painful death. So if the case of Z proved a god then the case of many other sick people disproved god.
Then there is this whole tendency of the religion crowd to be awfully selective without any explanation whatsoever. For example:
Quote:
|
God may have helped him live, but I don't think God purposely made him ill.
|
If god does exist, then god obviously made Z ill and then cured him. After all who else is going to make him ill? Frankly that seems a bit cruel to me, like torturing an ant. But I digress.
Quote:
|
Most religious people believe that the human body has a soul
|
This may surprise you but most Atheists and Agnostics believe they have a soul as well. I for example have a whole theory on the matter. I believe that the unification of the mind, body and the world creates a sprit; the spirit becomes a soul after our death. Which indicates that I also believe in an afterlife. I am rather fond of the teachings of Jesus and have always tried to embrace the Golden Rule. Would it also surprise you that I find angels more likely then god? After all many people report seeing angels. Even though they may be hallucinations that a hell of allot more evidence then we got on god so far.
So you see, to me god is not a necessity for any of those things to exist. They make just as much sense to me with god’s absence.