The Christian Union

[Rob Hearn]

In fact, it's the argument that one can't prove god doesn't exist that I referred to as sceptical. I am an atheist. The central tenet of my own athiesm is not that God does not exist so much as that there is no evidence that he exists. There's a subtle but important difference.

As for the bible, you can't deny that some of it has been regarded as literal truth by the church, and then regarded as metaphor when the social context changes. This seriously undermines its authority. Of course, that doesn't prevent somebody from taking a message from it (whether it be, 'gay sex is wrong' or 'love thy neighbour') but the message necessarily lacks objective substance.

Also, if you dislike the anonymity of the internet, why not use your real name?

"If you've already made up your mind, there's no point having this argument. All you are really seeking to do is either to attack our faith and make us feel bad, or to trumpet what you regard as your own superiority over us poor misguided sods."

I agree with you there. It's true that some atheists, such as the aforementioned Dawkins, are curiously intolerant of religion. I'm certainly not trying to make anybody feel bad about himself, though.

[Greebo]

Basically what he said ^^

I have seen no evidence of any god's existance; When arguments are made for a god's existance (or in fact an argument for anything), then I examine them and see how well they actually hold up under scrutiny. If I see flaws then I post them. If on the other hand, I don't, then I'll concede that point.

[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[flarewearer]

oh get to the point, god is only dog spelt backwards...

[hr]...it's fuckwittedness. Fuckwittery if you will...

[Guest]

Science can ask any question it wants, there are no limitations. It can only prove the things that it can observe

[Pender Native]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 22:50, 10th Dec 2004:


As for the bible, you can't deny that some of it has been regarded as literal truth by the church, and then regarded as metaphor when the social context changes.



He wasn't denying that at all, he was arguing the same point. If, for example, Jesus chose to explain mental illness in terms of demons so that it would be relevant and effective for the people he was dealing directly with it doesn't take away from the fact that he healed people, ene if we now know more about the causes of mental illness. Similarly, the fact that the writers of Genesis were mistaken as to the mechanics of the universe, that doesn't disprove the statement that God created it.
I have to say, for what is normally such a heated topic, everyone is being very stable and accepting of others arguments, rather then descending into viscious name calling like on the fox hunting and scottish independance threads. Well done!

[hr]
I like to listen to a man who likes to talk. Whoops! Sawdust and Treacle, put that in your herring and smoke it!

[Rob Hearn]

Similarly, the fact that the writers of Genesis were mistaken as to the mechanics of the universe, that doesn't disprove the statement that God created it.

But surely since all of our information about the activities of god comes through the bible, there's a very good chance that the information is false.

[Pender Native]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 22:46, 12th Dec 2004:
[i]Similarly, the fact that the writers of Genesis were mistaken as to the mechanics of the universe, that doesn't disprove the statement that God created it.

But surely since all of our information about the activities of god comes through the bible, there's a very good chance that the information is false.
[/i]


Why? Why does the 'what' of what someone did (create the universe) have to do with how they did it?
[hr]
I like to listen to a man who likes to talk. Whoops! Sawdust and Treacle, put that in your herring and smoke it!

[Rob Hearn]

Why? Why does the 'what' of what someone did (create the universe) have to do with how they did it?

It doesn't, necessarily, but if you know that the 'how' was incorrect, you have to query the 'what'. If a source is proven to be mistaken about one issue, that's all it takes to bring its reliability into question. Since the claim that God created the universe is already seriously lacking in empirical support, one needs a very good reason to believe it. A source that is proven to be incorrect on several counts doesn't provide any rational person with that reason.

And anyway, if god exists, how come every time I haul someone out of a car in GTA San Andreas the cops come out of nowhere and do their 'protect and serve' bit all over my face?