










Reply to a Christian
From SecularHumanism.org2. Comment #276 by Tim on September 24, 2006 at 1:36 pm
"I like suggesting to christians that genesis must be wrong because we have wisdom teeth. Bible thumpers believe we were created as we are today about 6000 years ago. "5. Comment #382 by Throwaway on September 27, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Nick,6. Comment #1791 by Richard on October 16, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Excellent article.7. Comment #3181 by Anonymous on October 26, 2006 at 7:05 am
Nick, all those site veiw the world through faith tinted spectacles and are basically preaching to the converted. Take away faith and they have no real content of any merit (not that faith gives them any merit anyway)8. Comment #13861 by Cable on December 19, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Sorry for the late entry into this discussion; I just discovered it. For myself I agree with Anonymous Two. Allow me to present my own version of her(?) argument, somewhat less elegantly:9. Comment #13869 by John Phillips on December 19, 2006 at 10:14 pm
I think the argument that Sam Harris is making though obviously not clear enough for many here, is that if the bible really is the word of god one would expect there to be more clarity, not forgetting the myriad contradictions to be found in it. He used mathematics as one example, especially as one of the only pieces of maths in it, i.e. pi=3, is so obviously flawed, even more so when the actual value of pi was already known with some accuracy prior to the bible being written but perhaps not known by the humans writing the relevant verses. As to Nick's interpretation of this as being rounded to the nearest cubit, I simply find this rationalisation after the fact.10. Comment #14332 by jeffreyg on December 22, 2006 at 4:25 am
Arriving late to the party, I've got to say that I think John's really summed this up, dragged us back to topic and brought the whole thing to a proper conclusion.11. Comment #15436 by Cable on December 31, 2006 at 9:41 am
John#46, I think your post is an interesting demonstration of my point from #45. Both sides can look straight at an argument for the other side and utterly miss its import. It's incredible to see.12. Comment #35383 by coolwainy on April 27, 2007 at 3:28 am
'Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe?' The purpose of the Bible is not to explain these things. It provides a guide for how best to live our lives, and provides us with a perfect example in human form of how to do so, which no other religion does. (I understand what Mr Harris is saying about how Christians would perceive other religions, but we have very good reasons for discrediting other religions, reasons which other religions cannot in turn use to discredit Christianity. There is not nearly enough room to go into these here, but there are enough books which explain these reasons).13. Comment #35385 by BaronOchs on April 27, 2007 at 3:38 am
14. Comment #35391 by coolwainy on April 27, 2007 at 3:51 am
Mark, there is an excellent book entitled 'The Case for Christ' in which an atheist sets out to disprove that Christ existed and was who he said he was and ends up coming up with the opposite conclusion through careful study of the evidence.15. Comment #35400 by Philip1978 on April 27, 2007 at 4:09 am
16. Comment #35401 by coolwainy on April 27, 2007 at 4:20 am
BaronOchs, I agree in a way that some of the miracles that Jesus is said to have performed may be considered to be trivial by the fact that they only affected a handful of people, but surely his reasons for doing so were to provide an example of how to treat others? By feeding the 5000 he was demonstrating that we should look out for our fellow human beings when they are in times of need and give to those less fortunate. A selfless being would not perform a miracle to show off or prove his divinity after all.17. Comment #35404 by daveadams on April 27, 2007 at 4:25 am
John Phillips, some of your comments are incisive, but others are just plain inaccurate. I presume by "a number of contradictory tales" about Jesus you are refering primarily to the gospels. Are you aware that it is generally accepted in academia that the gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus' death? If someone was to write a first-hand account of the Holocaust now, would you take it to be accurate? I suspect you would, and that was over 60 years ago. 50 years is not actually a long time for first-hand accounts of events.18. Comment #35408 by BaronOchs on April 27, 2007 at 4:40 am
19. Comment #35414 by gcdavis on April 27, 2007 at 5:05 am
20. Comment #35434 by SRWB on April 27, 2007 at 6:29 am
"Are you aware that it is generally accepted in academia that the gospels were written within 50 years of Jesus' death? If someone was to write a first-hand account of the Holocaust now, would you take it to be accurate? I suspect you would, and that was over 60 years ago. 50 years is not actually a long time for first-hand accounts of events."21. Comment #56184 by lostn on July 14, 2007 at 10:48 am
Not at all, using just the attribute of omnipotence, God could create prevent all evil and suffering, but could have no desire to. Not that this is my belief, but your assertion doesn't establish a contradiction against the concept of omnipotence.
1. Comment #275 by Tim on September 24, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Ah, a text full of the classic Dawkins error: telling me what I believe in order to perpetrate a composition of rude straw-man on top of bifurcation fallacies...There is so much baggage behind merely the phrase "literal (or inspired)", there are so many possible angles on John 14:6, so many attitudes to hell, indeed several approaches on the "viability" of other faiths, that really this "letter" is just annoying.
"The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me should suggest to you just how unsatisfactory I think your reasons for being a Christian are."
When you fail to consider that a data-set might have values contrary to the stereotypes you're attempting to impose on it, you are failing to make a scientific research of the domain. When people are involved in the process, they get pissed. Unsurprisingly, therefore, I consider Dawkins a bad spokesman for the atheist camp. Come back when you've included the moderate majority and a bunch of libierals in your research.