lol atheists

[Iliad]

god does not believe in atheists therefore atheists do not exist

Last time I heard it was easier to prove the existance of a religious minority than an invisible omnipotent sky daddy.

[Artimis]

First off we might not want to throw around words or at least define them better before using them. Christian. What is it? We can differ on what the meaning is but lets look at it.

My belief is that going to church does not make you a Christian. Nor does being a member of a "church". I firmly believe that a Christian, believes that Jesus is the Son of God (in fact is God) and believes that the Bible is the absolute Word of God, infallible. If this is true, which I believe it is, then there is a big problem with Evolutionist Christians. The Bible does not back it. It in fact contradicts it. Now I know that there are Christians that succumb to the belief in evolution, it doesn't make them non-christian it just makes them wrong. Save the "proof" of evolution for someone else, it does not exist. It can not be observed or replicated which is required for it to be a LAW. Hence it is merely just a theory.... which by the way, is laughable at best.


Carry on....

We've had quite a discussion on this subject ourselves in TRU, I maintain that the Bible as it stands today has be translated and re-translated so many times through the ages(as it was passed down from one generation to another) that the subsequent paraphrasing has taken it's toll on the meaning of the words in the bible. Simply put, anyone who is bilingual will know that I'm hinting at the words in any given language that don't have an exact match in another language and so approximations are made using the word or string of words with the closest meaning. If you do this enough times you will successfully garble the original meaning of the first bible. Particularly as the bible was first written in an era without global proof reading and quality control standards. Ultimately we'll need to locate the original bible and compare it with a modern day English language bible to weed out the discrepancies that have crept in over the past two thousand years or so.


Now back to RustyMonkey's Professor and Student, what you have proven here is that science can not rule out the existence of God, this does not mean science is wrong, in fact if anything it means that science is doing it's job. That does not guarantee for sure that God does exist, only that his absence is in question, in short real science is about keeping an open mind. To do otherwise is to tread the path of religion.

[Martin Ronne]

Very nice Rusty Monkey.

[john9blue]

Last time I heard it was easier to prove the existance of a religious minority than an invisible omnipotent sky daddy.

Backglass?

Now back to RustyMonkey's Professor and Student, what you have proven here is that science can not rule out the existence of God, this does not mean science is wrong, in fact if anything it means that science is doing it's job. That does not guarantee for sure that God does exist, only that his absence is in question, in short real science is about keeping an open mind. To do otherwise is to tread the path of religion.

You're right, except for the last sentence. Religious people do not close their minds to other possibilities. If tomorrow it was proven somehow that God does not exist, then most of us would drop our religions at once. The fact is that God is a scientific theory as well (although it would be better classified as a thought experiment). Scientists say "Who created the universe?", theists say "Maybe a supernatural being did it.", scientists say "Maybe, because we have no other theory to compare it to.". That doesn't imply that theists & scientists are mutually exclusive. Believers aren't closing their mind, they're opening it to a certain answer, which is the only answer we have right now. If you reject the theory of God due to insufficient evidence, that's fine, but atheists are in no position to call it "foolish" when they have no alternative theories.

[cowboyz]

The bible suggests we cannot worship any other gods beside him. This is not possible. No good god would be capable of caring whether you worshiped another god. It would be pure ego.

God's not egotistical... he's just awesome and he knows it. Wouldn't you want credit for creating the universe?

Game over

Also AAFitz..just because your finite human brain can't understand God's logic/reasons, doesn't prove the absence of God. All it does is reveal your own ego. Vanity yo

[luns101]

the Bible as it stands today has be translated and re-translated so many times through the ages(as it was passed down from one generation to another) that the subsequent paraphrasing has taken it's toll on the meaning of the words in the bible.

No matter how many times this has been explained that this was indeed, what did not happen, it keeps getting repeated.

[joecoolfrog]

the Bible as it stands today has be translated and re-translated so many times through the ages(as it was passed down from one generation to another) that the subsequent paraphrasing has taken it's toll on the meaning of the words in the bible.

No matter how many times this has been explained that this was indeed, what did not happen, it keeps getting repeated.

Well there are certainly contradictions in the bible and these are generally explained by mis translations , inaccurate copying or other 'misunderstandings'. If you dont accept these explanations then surely you are accepting that parts of the bible are flawed.
Incidently ( and I have no idea of the answer so its not a trick question ) did Jesus actually ever quote directly from the old testament, specifically did he say that it was all,or even partly,the direct word of God ?

[Haggis_McMutton]

That's odd, the OP seems to have forgotten to post the conclusion of that little story. Not to worry though, here it is:

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.

The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.

"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."

"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."

"Oh," said the Christian.

"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."

"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.

"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.

"I guess not."

"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."

The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."

The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"

"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"

"Uh, no."

"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"

"Well..."

"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.

"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."

The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."

"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."

"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"

"I didn't know that."

"In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley's 'Firing Line,' which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact."

"Really?"

"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"

"I guess not."

"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."

"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."

"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."

"I'm guess learning already," said the student, looking at the floor.

"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"

The student said lifelessly: "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil." It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"

"There is the absence of good," said the student.

"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."

The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."

"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."

The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."

"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."

The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."

"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.

"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" "Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."

"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"

"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."

"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."

"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."

"There you go," said the professor.

"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."

"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.

"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."

"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"

"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."

The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"

"Yes, yes," said the professor.

"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."

"So it would seem," said the professor.

"I'm going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn't tell me the truth about evolution!"

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person's life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

[Frigidus]

I've got to say, I'm actually very disappointed that that was written by an athiest...I hate these arguments between two guys some person made up. It's completely insulting to someone's intelligence to suggest that in the span of five minutes someone can talk you out of a long held faith (or lack thereof). Who writes these "dumbshit argues with 'expert' and promptly converts" things?

[2dimes]

Your argument is that there is faith.

Can one of us prove that the professor has a brain? yes, we can smash his head open or put him under some types of scans and it will show that he has a brain 100% of the time you check.

Can we prove that there is a god? No, we can't even check. We can pray and see if our prayers will come true, but for some reason that only works part of the time.

That is the difference between science and religion.

Relax, eventually all of you "scientists" will get your "evidence" of God.

[PLAYER57832]

the Bible as it stands today has be translated and re-translated so many times through the ages(as it was passed down from one generation to another) that the subsequent paraphrasing has taken it's toll on the meaning of the words in the bible.

No matter how many times this has been explained that this was indeed, what did not happen, it keeps getting repeated.

This is the absolute truth, however as a speaker of more than one language yourself (I believe you have said previously -- correct me if wrong), you know that there is often a big differance between translating meanings and translating words. The Bible meanings have been translated with astounding accuracy. However, people who wish to look at each individual word instead of the overall text can and do have issues with people who look at the overall meanings... whether they do it with good (even Christian) intent or to try and "disprove" the Bible.

Further, many people within Christendom assert many things that are not actually even in the Bible (as I know you are well aware).

[PLAYER57832]

Your argument is that there is faith.

Can one of us prove that the professor has a brain? yes, we can smash his head open or put him under some types of scans and it will show that he has a brain 100% of the time you check.

Can we prove that there is a god? No, we can't even check. We can pray and see if our prayers will come true, but for some reason that only works part of the time.

That is the difference between science and religion.

Relax, eventually all of you "scientists" will get your "evidence" of God.

uuh ... let's get our issues clear here, please.

I (and many, many others) am very much a scientist AND very much a believer in Christ and God. They are not in conflict.

I DO have evidence to support my belief. The problem is much of it is not 100% proveable to another person. The classic analogy is love. How do you prove, unequivocably that you love someone so that there is never, ever any doubt. Now, I will rely on other married folks to back me up here, but even in the absolute best of marriages, there usually comes a time when you question. We doubt, wonder if we love our spouse or our spouse loves us. Almost always, we resolve this within ourselves ... often without anyone else really and truly even knowing there was a question in our minds.

You can argue that science can measure brain impulses. True, but not the real answer. They measure certain responses, but there is still something differant about love that is not yet explainable. Further, people really and truly do feel differantly and yet sometimes ascribe the same words to those differant feelings. (a most basic example is does love to an 80 year old mean the same as it does to a 15 year old)

BUT, here is the wonder of science. Science only provides answers that it can prove and assert. Science is clear about what is and is not a fact. HOWEVER, that is not the end. The study of science is about asking questions ... ALL questions. Science allows people to ask and think about and study those questions with easy answers (what happens if I mix this with that, what do I see when I look at this under a microscope) and very difficult questions that may never be really answered, such as does God exist? Science will never proclaim an ANSWER to those questions ... and so they are often discarded, put in the realm of "something nice to talk about over beer", but if we did not at least ask those questions, then we would never end up with real answers to related questions.

We probably will never be able to absolutely, scientifically prove or disprove the presence of God as a scientific fact. However, by asking about our origins, how we got here, we do open the door to all sorts of questions we CAN answer, questions like what it is to be human, what makes people think and how we got here int he first place. Some of those we can partially answer (Evolution, though theory is based upon much fact), some we cannot (what is a soul?).

The issue in science class, though, is not whether students are allowed to ask, the question is helping to guide students to understand those things that we CAN prove and test (facts), from those things we can partially prove (theories) from those things that are, at least for now, pure and utter speculation (does God exist). In a few cases, because the answers can be so contentious and so lacking in physical proof, because religious freedom is a foundation of our nation (now, though not always) public schools avoid issues of religion, except in pure objective/historical/descriptive terms. (can't know much about the middle ages without learning a bit about the Christian church of that time)

[2dimes]

I stand by my statement. Eventually everyone will have 100% proof of God.

[Frigidus]

I stand by my statement. Eventually everyone will have 100% proof of God.

It's amazing how many people in the world are 100% positive of things. Me, I'm 99% positive of the opposite. I think the solution to this issue is necromancy. We raise the dead, then ask them about God. Maybe, just maybe...the answer has never been in science...but rather in crazy, spooky magic.

[PLAYER57832]

the Bible as it stands today has be translated and re-translated so many times through the ages(as it was passed down from one generation to another) that the subsequent paraphrasing has taken it's toll on the meaning of the words in the bible.

No matter how many times this has been explained that this was indeed, what did not happen, it keeps getting repeated.

Well there are certainly contradictions in the bible and these are generally explained by mis translations , inaccurate copying or other 'misunderstandings'. If you dont accept these explanations then surely you are accepting that parts of the bible are flawed.
Incidently ( and I have no idea of the answer so its not a trick question ) did Jesus actually ever quote directly from the old testament, specifically did he say that it was all,or even partly,the direct word of God ?

I addressed part of this to Lunn. Most Christians do NOT believe there are true errors within the Bible. What happens is not that the Bible itself is in error, but that people, who ARE fallible, misunderstand things. Why do the Roman Catholics think that the Pope is descended from Peter, but Protestants do not? We read the same Bible, but understand certain passages differantly. Who gets to judge and decide?

A Roman Catholic looks to the Pope and church hierarchy (primarily). Protestants more often see this as something we each do more individually, with as much or as little guidance from our clergy as we wish. (again, loosely ... there is a LOT of individual variation here, we are human beings, after all!).

BUT, beyond that Protestants also often have another perspective. When two, thinking and caring people can discern differant meanings we say there are 3, not 2 possibilities. "A" might be correct, "B" might be correct, OR ... it could be that they are BOTH correct, in some way that is beyond our human ability to understand at this current time.

Another answer arises when things really and truly have changed over time. Again, usually this has to do with people's understandings of the Bible, not actually errors or mistakes within the words. People once looked to the Bible to assert slavery was fine, particularly of people who looked differant. Now most people look to the Bible as reason to oppose slavery. The words did not change, but our culture and therefore the way we perceive the words has changed.

BUT, there are a few cases where there might actually be real and true translation issues. Two examples that come to mind are the Red sea and Joseph's coat of many colors. It turns out that they probably are more correctly translated as "Sea of Reeds" (which refers to a differant region in the Mideast than the Red Sea) and the coat was a coat of long sleeves. Why, if the Bible is perfect, if the words were inspired, did God allow that to happen? I am not God and therefore can only guess. However, I would assert that it was fully and entirely intentional on God's part. Maybe God felt that, given the culture of the time, the change made things more clear. For example, it is quite possible that during the Middle Ages, etc, having a cloak with long sleeves did not mean as much as a coat with many colors, so rather than go through and explain the significance, the translation was made for it to be a coat of many colors. Does it change the overall intent and lesson of the story? NO! In fact, that change, technically an error by today's langauge standards, by absolute literal "word for word" translation standards, made the passage clearer.

Similarly, there must have been a reason why God thought it wise for Europeans to translate the "Sea of Reeds" into the "Red Sea". I really don't have an explanation for that. As a biologist, I could wonder if it might be to protect the more fragile enviroment of the Sea of Reeds (more of a marsh than a real ocean), to perhaps keep armies from seeing that as a ready path for crossing or some such. HOWEVER, that is pure, utter speculation. I DO NOT KNOW. God does, though. Again, did it really and truly change any message of the story? No! Maybe threw off some early archeologists who looked in the Red Sea for evidence, but again... that might have been God's intent, to save those items for a time when we could preserve them properly. The message was absolutely and abundantly clear whether the words are translated as "Sea of Reeds" or "Red Sea".

The bottom line is that where there is a translation "mistake" (in human terms) it was fully and completely allowed by God, for some reason only God knows. That same God now has us discovering the real truth. But, it is possible that there are even more such cases yet to come. Only God could know for sure.

[jay_a2j]

I stand by my statement. Eventually everyone will have 100% proof of God.

As well as that God created man as He said He did, from the dust of the Earth.

[PLAYER57832]

I stand by my statement. Eventually everyone will have 100% proof of God.

It's amazing how many people in the world are 100% positive of things. Me, I'm 99% positive of the opposite. I think the solution to this issue is necromancy. We raise the dead, then ask them about God. Maybe, just maybe...the answer has never been in science...but rather in crazy, spooky magic.

At some point, this is pure semantics.

I bridge both the science world and the world of faith. I believe each. When I speak to Christians, or even others of other faiths, I DO assert that I know 100% sure that God exists. I DO, though I cannot prove it to you.

However, as a scientist, because I cannot prove it, because I am schooled in keeping scientific proof seperate from beliefs (not matter how deeply held), I will not say that I am sure as a scientist, meaning that I cannot provide you with absolute scientific proof that God exists. This is no way diminishes my belief OR my knowledge of science. It is a matter of speech and communication only.

It is no differant than my changing certain words when I spoke to my son at age 5, versus now at 8, versus how I speak to my son at 21. We must communicate with the audience to whom we are speaking.

[PLAYER57832]

I stand by my statement. Eventually everyone will have 100% proof of God.

As well as that God created man as He said He did, from the dust of the Earth.

yes, well, that's what scientists call Evolution.

[cowboyz]

If Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton couldn't explain life without the existence of God, then atheists are gonna have a tough job.
Good luck

[2dimes]

I stand by my statement. Eventually everyone will have 100% proof of God.

It's amazing how many people in the world are 100% positive of things. Me, I'm 99% positive of the opposite. I think the solution to this issue is necromancy. We raise the dead, then ask them about God. Maybe, just maybe...the answer has never been in science...but rather in crazy, spooky magic.

Well until you get there you are only allowed a high percentage of evidence, there's allways enough missing for you to choose to deny it. That's the freedom of choice part that the wacky christians like to call, "Free will."

Your raising the dead for questioning is not an option. Also if you spoke with a person that had been raised from the dead that's no different than speaking with anyone else, it's still just their story. That's not 100% proof regardless of whether it's true or not. No matter what they had seen they can't prove it to you.

[Frigidus]

If Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton couldn't explain life without the existence of God, then atheists are gonna have a tough job.
Good luck

Neither Albert Einstein nor Isaac Newton were philosophers. I'll stick with the experts.

[jonesthecurl]

Wow, that Rusty Monkey turned the key and the clockwork arguments ran off on their own.

[Frigidus]

I stand by my statement. Eventually everyone will have 100% proof of God.

It's amazing how many people in the world are 100% positive of things. Me, I'm 99% positive of the opposite. I think the solution to this issue is necromancy. We raise the dead, then ask them about God. Maybe, just maybe...the answer has never been in science...but rather in crazy, spooky magic.

Well until you get there you are only allowed a high percentage of evidence, there's allways enough missing for you to choose to deny it. That's the freedom of choice part that the wacky christians like to call, "Free will."

Your raising the dead for questioning is not an option. Also if you spoke with a person that had been raised from the dead that's no different than speaking with anyone else, it's still just their story. That's not 100% proof regardless of whether it's true or not. No matter what they had seen they can't prove it to you.

Sure, but a testimonial beyond "I saw a bright light" wouldn't hurt your case.

[Frigidus]

Wow, that Rusty Monkey turned the key and the clockwork arguments ran off on their own.

I'm almost ashamed really. I am aware that I'm posting in a troll thread...but I just love this stuff. I can't help it.

[2dimes]

I stand by my statement. Eventually everyone will have 100% proof of God.

It's amazing how many people in the world are 100% positive of things. Me, I'm 99% positive of the opposite. I think the solution to this issue is necromancy. We raise the dead, then ask them about God. Maybe, just maybe...the answer has never been in science...but rather in crazy, spooky magic.

Well until you get there you are only allowed a high percentage of evidence, there's allways enough missing for you to choose to deny it. That's the freedom of choice part that the wacky christians like to call, "Free will."

Your raising the dead for questioning is not an option. Also if you spoke with a person that had been raised from the dead that's no different than speaking with anyone else, it's still just their story. That's not 100% proof regardless of whether it's true or not. No matter what they had seen they can't prove it to you.

Sure, but a testimonial beyond "I saw a bright light" wouldn't hurt your case.

Meh, I don't have a case. I'm all for helping others see evidence of God but I don't care if you choose to reject him.


It's like telling kids they have the right away as a pedestrian, that information clouds their judgment. I tell my kids that a car is much heavier than you and will be dented when it kills you.

If you want to force cars to stop for you risking the fact that dude is texting to update his facebook status and won't notice your brilliant interpretation of traffic laws. You're right, he broke the law running your dead ass down.