XPost: talk.religion.christian.jehovah-witness, free.christians, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ox_qljjor@trashmail.net
HeatWave wrote in
news:IFrDg.514$Ji1.69@trnddc05:
> Enkidu wrote:
>> HeatWave wrote in
>> news:WzqDg.68107$MW.33363@trnddc04:
>>
>>> Enkidu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah? So is there any reason to believe a god exists or not?
>>> It has been said that there are two books that tell us about the
>>> existence of God—the 'book' of creation, or nature around us, and
>>> the Bible. They have been the basis for belief for millions of
>>> people past and present. For example, a king of the 11th century
>>> B.C.E., impressed by what he observed in the starry heavens,
>>> exclaimed poetically: 'The heavens are declaring the glory of God;
>>> and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.' (Psalm 19:1)
>>> In the 20th century, an astronaut, looking at the spectacular view
>>> of the earth from his spacecraft as it circled the moon, was moved
>>> to recite: 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the
>>> earth.'—Genesis 1:1, KJ.
>>
>> The "Book of Creation" does not tell us anything about the existance
>> of God, it is simply the reality against which all beliefs and
>> theories must be checked.
>
> Then it would not be a book of creation.
Right you are. But it's your term, not mine. I call it "the universe."
>> And the Bible is just one among many "Holy Books" that
>> claims to have all the answers, even answers to questions no sane
>> person would ask.
>
> I never seen the Bible make such a claim. People who read it do.
Do you?
> > Hold the Bible up to reality and compare. Does the Bible
>> match reality? No? Then it must be discarded.
>
> Do you always answer your own questions, more so when you ask others
> to do something.
Answer, then, if you can.
>>> These two books, however, are under attack by those who claim no
>>> belief in God. They say that scientific investigation of the world
>>> around us has proved that life came into existence not by
>>> intelligent creation but by blind chance and the haphazard process
>>> of evolution.
>>
>> Who says that? Stephen J. Gould didn't. Richard Dawkins doesn't.
>
> ok so you mentioned two individuals. Got anymore?
You claim "they" say it. Who are "they"?
>> They
>> say that evolution and the natural processes we see around us are
>> quite capable of explaining what we see, that theories based on
>> evolution and these natural processes match quite well when held up
>> against reality. There is simply no need to postulate a creator god,
>> no observation such a postulate explains, so like all surplus
>> postulates, it is discarded.
>>
>>> They argue, therefore, that there was no Creator and that it follows
>>> that the question of God is superfluous. Furthermore, many of them
>>> believe that the Bible is simply out-of-date and illogical, hence,
>>> not worthy of belief. Consequently, for them, there is no longer any
>>> basis for belief in the existence of God. Is all of this true? What
>>> do the facts show?
>>
>> Isn't the Bible "out of date"? It claims the Earth is flat and
>> stands still. It sanctions slavery, intfanticide, genocide, stoning
>> children and wives and rape. Are these *your* values?
>>
>
> I see you haven't been following the War in Iraq, nor the
> Israel-Lebanese conflict.
Are these *your* values?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose."
-Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
