10-04-2004, 02:44
I have to post the "Belief-Good Bad" thread again because it won't let me reply
Well thank you anyway Mystic Forest anyway here it goes:
Dawkins says that tradition should not be trusted as fact. He says all religions are tradition, and he says tradition comes from nothing. Well wait a second here. Before the very first fellow came up with this idea that became a tradition over time there had to be the belief in nothing, according to Dawkins' logic. Well if there at one point was no religion the belief in nothing had to exist. So the belief in nothing was passed from generation to generation, this would make it a tradition. So if tradition can't be trusted as fact how can the belief in nothing be trusted as fact, while religion cannot?
O.K, you say that there are many religions and they can't all be right, correct you would be. Therefore, you say the belief in nothing, (a tradition mind you) is more reliable. However you say this without any EVIDENCE you just rely on probability. If you say relying on probability is sustainable, why are the odds of the Big Bang ocurring once out of every 10 to the 400,000th times. Pretty low odds if you ask me.
Right this second I can't remmember the rest of the letter because I can't scroll down to read it, in case I forget about this post tommorow here is a source for you that I would suggest listening to if you think the atheist is on the rational high ground. Go to www.rzim.org go to braodcast archives(at the top right white box) go back over one year ago and give a listen to "Why I am Not an Atheist" each program is 30 minutes. Also if you are intrigued listen to "Jesus among other Gods" that one explores why Jesus is unique to well you get.
Well thank you anyway Mystic Forest anyway here it goes:
Dawkins says that tradition should not be trusted as fact. He says all religions are tradition, and he says tradition comes from nothing. Well wait a second here. Before the very first fellow came up with this idea that became a tradition over time there had to be the belief in nothing, according to Dawkins' logic. Well if there at one point was no religion the belief in nothing had to exist. So the belief in nothing was passed from generation to generation, this would make it a tradition. So if tradition can't be trusted as fact how can the belief in nothing be trusted as fact, while religion cannot?
O.K, you say that there are many religions and they can't all be right, correct you would be. Therefore, you say the belief in nothing, (a tradition mind you) is more reliable. However you say this without any EVIDENCE you just rely on probability. If you say relying on probability is sustainable, why are the odds of the Big Bang ocurring once out of every 10 to the 400,000th times. Pretty low odds if you ask me.
Right this second I can't remmember the rest of the letter because I can't scroll down to read it, in case I forget about this post tommorow here is a source for you that I would suggest listening to if you think the atheist is on the rational high ground. Go to www.rzim.org go to braodcast archives(at the top right white box) go back over one year ago and give a listen to "Why I am Not an Atheist" each program is 30 minutes. Also if you are intrigued listen to "Jesus among other Gods" that one explores why Jesus is unique to well you get.