That you go to church or heard about this there this Sunday is irrelevant. That it's a false story that you posted on a public forum makes is subject to criticism.
You still haven't proved that it is false. Like Spooner said, why is it your mission to try and bring hate into a good story?
It may not be said that there is no god, it may be said that there is no reason to think that there is one.
I'm not angry or uncomfortable, nor am I projecting "venom." I'm using abrupt language to criticize a false story, which would not be in any way validated by quantum physics, and is not categorically representative of god or a belief thereof. It's slanderous of you to assume I'm unhappy about the victim's survival, it's flatly dishonest to assume that fabricating angels or miracles in any way contributed to their well being.
Angels don't exist, and stating so is not a projection of "hatred." Shoe-horning that lie into a story of someone's survival makes the story more susceptible to criticism.
Only I wasn't trying to end the debate, just trying to get pouhe to further his side of the argument.
No one has proven it to be true, they simply posted a link because hearing it made them feel good. I could probably do the same with links to several proofs of the non-existence of angels.
So, because it cannot be proven true makes it false. Gotcha. Like you said, it's a story that makes believers feel good. Since you are a non-believer, it makes you feel hateful. See what I did there?
Fairies and ghosts EXIST DAMN YOU! If you don't believe it, you are being hateful! Prove they don't exist!!! :grin: Sophomoric... Pouhe is guilty of telling the truth, stone him. Divine intervention is a vicious lie.
D&D in 3...2...1... Can't we just appreciate the fact that no one died because of this horrible accident? If they people want to believe it was a miracle that saved them so be it.
If you want to talk absolutes, the article never stated angels were involved. It was only stated as a possibility by the witnesses. It could have easily been a person who was kind enough to help. In that case, it is an amazing act of kindness. The story could have been entirely fabricated as well. You made the certainty of angels in the story the focal point.
The last line of the story. "I do believe he certainly could have been an angel dressed in priest's attire because the Bible tells us there are angels among us," Carla Churchhill Lentz told USA Today. Seems like the article wanted angels to be the focal point. I have no problem with anyone who thinks this article is a bag of ass.
I asserted that an ages-old literary concept that has never been historically or scientifically documented with any credibility is false. You vindictively and dishonestly conflated disagreement with hatred. Not a parallel or analogous statement at all.
That could have been done without writing or posting the story, or falsely inserting accounts of angels and miracles for literary and promotional purposes.
The entire article and also the OPs original subject line and post is focused on angels. WTF are you talking about?
