Sorry, must have slept through that class!

They were handing out virgins. I guess you didn't get yours. :)

or maybe you've confused me with someone else Rick. I don't think I've said anything about a burning bush. My God man, have you ever lost it.:rolleyes:

First trolling for religious fervor with this post, then not knowing who said what when.

I love this part:
"If it had to run out, that was the place to be," he said. "There was an instantaneous answer to prayer as we crossed the ridge and there was an airfield — I didn't know it existed till then."

If they hadn't been too scared to look up, I'm sure they could have seen God's fingertips just over the edge of the wings and if you had looked at Google Maps of the area where they landed just earlier that morning, you would have seen dense forest with big, dead trees, branches like spikes in the sky.

I historically avoid these religion threads like the plague as I know many good folks on both sides of the fence, but that right there is some good stuff ;):D

The point of the thread (which I think has been very aptly illustrated by a few posters) is that those that call for proof of God will never find it. They won't find it because they will always cling to the answer that is the worldly one. Just in this thread the knee jerk reaction was coincidence. Not even a consideration of any other option.

Shaun, of course, seems to cling to this Superman version of God. I suspect that unless God appears to him personally and parts the seas of the ocean before him he will never figure it out.

Two possible scenarios of the crash landing are:

1) The prayer and crash at the Jesus sign was a coincidence; or

2) Divine intervention.

Scenario 1 is perfectly reasonable and compatible with what is known about "reality". It's the default position for most humans, IMO. There is no need to jump to a conclusion to accept Scenario 1.

Scenario 2 requires one to believe there was divine intervention by a supernatural being - a "Superman" supreme being, no less. This requires a rather incredible leap of faith. It also forces one to ask why the supernatural being saved these praying folks and not millions and millions of other praying folks - a question which seems to be answered by believers with "God has his reasons" or " . . . works in mysterious ways".

I think this thread represents the depth of delusion some, not all, believers find themselves. Like I said, there is a significant number of believers, IMO, who do not believe in an active deity. It certainly offers no proof, by any standard, of a deity.

FWIW.

FWIW, when I was younger and a "believer" I recall hearing stories about a church in Europe where a bomb came in through the ceiling but did not explode. I thought this was an amazing and convincing "sign" there was a deity.

Also, stories about churches spared in violent weather also seemed to support some level of supernatural intervention.

Once I began to question the conclusions I had arrived it, I understood that Europe has thousands of churches, many of which were destroyed by bombs. There was no evidence that churches were treated any differently than any other structure and that Europe is covered with unexploded ordinance. The unexploded bomb in that church, while at first seeming miraculous, is nothing more than what one might expect by chance.

The same can be said of churches that seem to miraculously remain standing after a storm while all of the other structures surrounding them are leveled. If one backs up from that single event, and tries to remove one's possible religious biases, one will find that it is somewhat common for storms to destroy one house, but leave the house next door undamaged . . . and that churches are very prolific across the US.

If churches or airplanes full of praying people were somehow protected and saved more often than what happens by sheer statistical chance, then I would give such occurrences, as possible evidence of an "active" deity, serious consideration and credence.

FWIW.

All of what you say is true KStarnes and I don't deny that thousands of people who believe in God die every day. That's not the point though. The point is that I hypothesize that no matter what event would occur, the athiest community would come up with a "natural" explanation for it in order to continue to continue their non-belief.

The point is that those who call for proof are exactly the same people that would discount any such proof.

And as I have stated before, you are actually very cordial and pleasant in these discussions so I'm not really aiming at you here, you just happen to be the one responding :).

Let me get this straight, God was busy or asleep at the wheel when Hitler was killing millions of Jews,, but it was divine intervention when these two idiots ran out of fuel ?? Let me think about that and get back to you ok ?

Wow, the idea of the Superman God seems to be pervasive...

Someone seems to have a fascination with poles...

Damnit Shaun, once again your humor is above me!!! ( fishing ? something to do with how many of those rods have fish ??? ) enlighten us!!

ROFLMAO!!!!!

you couldn't have timed this post any better based on this one just a few minutes ago on my Find the White Guy thread.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

So, you're implying that this occurrence should be interpreted as proof that god exists? Had they augered-in mere feet from the end of the runway, would that have been proof that god doesn't exist?

I don't understand how one instance of good fortune can be interpreted as "a miracle" or "divine intervention" when thousands of other instances of death and suffering are dismissed as not relevant. You can't have it both ways.

Interpreting this as a coincidence is far from a knee-jerk reaction. What evidence leads you to "other options"? Is there no way in the world this could have happened without supernatural interference? The only possible outcome in this situation was "god did it"? If not, then what leads you to that assumption?

*****! Where was I? Go to the crapper and look what I miss......

just trolling Todd, just trolling.:)

Hey man, it's your picture...

Yes, you are.

I'm not implying anything. I asked a question.