Title: Is there a God? Source:
none URL Source:http://none Published:Feb 12, 2007 Author:master_of_disater Post Date:2007-02-12 23:35:38 by master_of_disaster Keywords:None Views:32641 Comments:37
I recently invited two posters to come here and debate with me if there is a God. Respond to this and I will try to give you better answers.
I wasn't arguing the existence of god, I have already said it is impossible to dissprove it, but that that is not a proof that it exists. Arguing the existence of god would be an exercise in futility either way. Personally I think arbitrary religious dogma is socially deconstructive which is why I hate many aspects of christianity and the other monotheistic religions. Creationism is an example of this.
The reason I shrug it off so to speak, is because it goes against what, in my opinion, humans should model their behavior by. No one should intrinsicly accept things, they should question what is out there. Creationism directly antagonises this view. Also, I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize aspects of religion we don't like in the same way it is perfectly reasonable to criticize aspects of society we don't like, i.e. racism, homophobia....
Bible's accuracy on other scientific points shows overall accuracy From EvoWiki Jump to: navigation, search Contents [hide] 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 Related claims 6 Acknowledgments
[edit] Claim The Bible's accuracy on various scientific and historical points shows its overall accuracy.
[edit] Source Gitt, Werner, 1993. Did God Use Evolution?, p. 99 [edit] Responses The argument is worthless with the accompanying (and unspoken) presumption that if any part of a story is true, all other parts of the story must be true, as well. We know that this presumption is definitely not true in the case of Sherlock Holmes stories (the city of London exists, but Holmes himself never did), among a near-infinite number of counterexamples; therefore, why should this presumption ever be true of any story? The existence of the ancient city of Troy, mentioned in the Iliad and Odyssey, has been verified by archaelogical research. If the Bible's stipulated accuracy on some factual matters is indeed evidence of its overall accuracy, the Illiad's and Odyssey's verified accuracy as regards the city of Troy must, equally, be evidence of their overall accuracy. Therefore, if "it's accurate on some factual matters" is a valid reason to accept that Creationism is true, it's equally a valid reason to accept that the Olympian pantheon exists. In point of fact, the Bible gets many scientific points wrong -- sometimes grossly so. Leviticus says that hares have cloven hooves and chew cud. Other sections indicate that seeds die before sprouting, that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, that grasshoppers are four-legged animals, and that the heart is the seat of awareness. None of these are true. add more responses [edit] Fallacies contained in this claim Knights and Knaves (Bible is either totally right or totally wrong) [edit] Related claims Bible says the earth is round Bible says the earth is unsupported Bible got water cycle right Records say civilization was man's original state Bible specifies good medical and hygienic practices The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it The Bible is inerrant The Bible is literal Bible claims inspiration Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it Bible is unique in other ways Bible is harmonious throughout [edit] Acknowledgments Retrieved from "http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Bible% 27s_accuracy_on_other_scientific_points_shows_overall_accuracy" Category: Creationist claims
sorry for the spam I just pasted what I found on wilkopedia.
