From: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com (Jim Cobabe)
Subject: Re: Atheist
Reply-To: jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph 
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:50:48 GMT

In article <gdtRq*RI0@presto.UUCP>, random@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche) writes:
(stuff deleted...)
|> Basicly the heart of the debate is does god exist or not.

Okay.

|>  I say
|> he doesn't, simply because there is now sientific evidence to
|> support him.

What constitutes "scientific evidence"?

|>I see no reason to be superstitious about anything.

Good for you!  I don't either.  :-)

|> If you can't prove it, then is doens't exist.

This is hardly an acceptable premise.  You'll have to do better.  :-)

Apparently what you are trying to say is that lack of proof, or failure to
produce "logical" proof, equals proof.  Sorry, but this does not seem "logical" to me.

|> You can't prove
|> god so he doesn't exist.

You can't prove that 1 + 1 = 2.  But we would be silly to argue about it.

Someone made the point in an earlier post that they feel like a sufficiently
logical argument is required in order for them to believe in something.  I
was trying to point out the problems with this, but apparently did not get
the message across.

To you and me, it seems intellectually satisfying to believe that 1 + 1 = 2
without requiring any evidence except our own intuition and experience.
But I have the same kind of feeling about the existence of God.  No journal
articles required.

|> As far as the bible goes.  Its a great story book and one of the
|> bests books you can get on morial value.  That I will admit, but
|> its about as factial as the comic books I used to read.  It
|> contradices its self too much and as has been stated before its
|> just plain bad writing.  The King James edition is the worst.
|> Its ashame that its what most of the modern church teachings are
|> founded on.  The James edition was translated in a time when man
|> still feared the dark.  Satan was in the darkness.  Pure science
|> was feared by the church because it would take away the power and
|> faith in the church by the common people.  

I really don't care to argue about the Bible as evidence of God.  It wan't
really intended to serve as such, and is pretty poorly suited to this purpose.

You don't have much strength to argue that the Bible is "just plain bad
writing".  Again, it was not intended to satisfy modern literary critics,
but if past and current popularity means anything, you would have
to concede that the Bible is by far the most successful book in history.

As far as internal consistency and factual basis are concerned, I suppose
the Bible has the same kind of problems that any collections of ancient
writings would have.  If you are attempting a "logical" and objective
analysis of the Bible, I am _sure_ you would have taken this fact into
account.  :-)

It has always been my understanding that the Bible played a major
role in freeing the "dark-age" inhabitants of Europe from the oppressive
influence of the dominant church.  Modern printing methods made it
possible for people to have reading material at a practical cost, and
millions of them learned to read by reading the Bible.  This new literacy
contributed substantially to the later developments in science, advanced
by the next few generations of literate and Bible-reading Europeans.

*****************************************************************
| Jim Cobabe                   |  uunet!ingr!b11!cobabe!jimc    |
| Software Consultant          |  jimc@cobabe.b11.ingr.com      |
| System Utilities Group       | Just My Own Bigoted Opinions  |
| Mail Stop: CR1104            |  phone: (205) 730-5625         |
| Intergraph Corporation       |    fax: (205) 730-6011         |
| Huntsville, AL  35894-0001   |                                |
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: hsv.religion