Originally Posted by jekyl_hyde
This is the last thing I'm going to say on this subject, because we've been down this road so many times before...
How many ways is there to say this:
1. Your words, not mine.
2. Straight from your mouth. I didn't put these words into your "mouth", because you typed them yourself.
3. Your stamp of approval, not mine.
Also, it's not that I know people that have been shot at and survived gunshot wounds. It's their take/point-of-view as to why they survived. You want to debate, stay on topic.
Originally Posted by liondemon
I never claimed to have read the bible and found any conclusive evidence. My bad if I made it seem that way. I haven't read much of the bible since I was a child in Sunday school. I was simply stating the common-sense conclusion I reached, which is pretty conclusive itself though if I do say so myself.
I never said the doctrine of religion poses no foundations for that belief system. That's twice you seem to have accused me of something that I never even implied.
The first time you seemed to be accusing me was when you asked me if I would tell the gunman about his gun, and then you told me to get real. It seemed like you were accusing me of having implied that you should have done that. The second time is above, what you said about the doctrine of religion as if implying that I even made that claim. It had nothing to do with what you quoted me as saying. As quoted and bolded above, I apologized for my post implying that and then clarified what I had intended to say to you, even explaining that I had not read the bible since I was a child. So there was no point in you implying that I was denying that I said that. Based on what the bible says and is contradicted by common sense and all sorts of evidence as well as the bible itself at times, as pointed out by other posts above me, my personal conclusion was the bible is a book of bullshit. I wrote, "The conclusion, based on what the bible says," when I should have written, "My conclusion, based on what I know of the bible and what I know of the real world," even though it's still a common-sense conclusion to anyone who lives and interacts in the real world, the internet world, or even the world of non-fiction books. No God.
You said- Your implication was that the gun jamming was a coincidence. I've known several people that have been shot at, and every time the bullet missed (or hit, but wasn't a fatal hit) did not think it a coincidence.
Then I responded- I've known several people who have been shot and killed, several who have been shot at and didn't get shot, and several who have survived multiple gunshot wounds. Just because you know a few people who were lucky doesn't mean anything. You say that as if just because you know them and they didn't get hit by the bullets, somehow God was protecting them. What about all the other people over the world who don't get shot and those who do? What does the few people you know change about them not getting shot being a coincidence? Sometimes shit happens and sometimes it doesn't, especially when you're talking about shooting at people from whatever the distance may be, under whatever the conditions may be:drive-by, point blank, six shots, twelve shots, semi-auto, auto. People miss their targets all the time. There is nothing supernatural about it.
How exactly did I fall off topic? Were you trying to say that those several people did not think it was a coincidence that they survived? And if that is what you were trying to say in that sentence, what point were you trying to make about that in response to what I said to you, which was that I never implied that you should have told the gunman to take better care of his gun? You seem to be the one who has trouble staying on topic.