It obviously is an oversimplification by the literal definition of the word and all possible uses of it. You can't sum up decades of research into biology and the sciences by simply saying "oh he thinks god isn't real". If anything, it speaks to your lack of intelligence rather than his. You're unable to even recognize someone's success and knowledge even if you disagree with it. You should be more open minded, I think.We all know what Dawkins thinks about God so it's not an oversimplification at all.
Again, funny how you think you can summarize someone's work without having even read it either. You think you know better than all of the scientists just because you've read the bible, laughable.
Something that we have a tremendous amount of proof for. I'm not even going to bother going into this again because I know you're too obstinate to even care if I typed out an essay about why you're wrong.And, for these conditions to make any sense one has to develope billions and billions of years into the imagination of young people as though it were fact when it is not.
Probably because a bunch of nutters have spent the past 2000 years violently repressing all other religions and spreading as many bibles to as many places as possible, usually forcefully converting people as they go along. Not to mention all of the Gideon bibles that no one ever reads, or those tiny little pocket bibles that people hand out that no one ever reads. The amount of times something has been printed or repeated as no bearing on the veracity of the statement. If there were more Nancy Drew books than Bible's would that somehow make Nancy Drew more or less true than it is?What we can agree on is that Nancy never claimed to be God as Jesus Christ did and it's that claim that has outperformed every other publication ever made. Why would that be if there was no God?
No, of course not. And the same is true of the bible.
Oh, and interestingly enough it would seem that the bible might not even be the best selling book ever.
Seems like Mao might be the new Jesus then, Basics. Better get your little red book. I expect you to be a devoted Maoist by the next time you post. Wikipedia also mentions that religious books are not typically counted, saying:Originally Posted by Wikipedia
This should show you exactly why a number of times a book has been printed or published is a terrible way to decide the veracity of the contents. The more times something is repeated, doesn't make it more true each time. In fact, it has the potential to be less true over time due to the insidious chinese. This is especially true of books that have been translated back and forth between different languages over time, like the bible.Originally Posted by Wikipedia
There's a fun game that people used to play on the internet, where you take a sentence and run it through google translate a few times in languages to see how easily the phrases get ed up, and the humorous results thereof. So you take it from English > Greek > Hebrew > Latin > French > English or whatever and see how bad it got.
I for example took the phrase "Akar is the superior man." and ran it through the translator a few times and it came back out "The meaning of the images." which just goes to show the unreliability of translations, especially when you take into account things like similes and metaphors and what not.
What debauchery on ours streets are you referring to? Be specific, because it's pretty clear that it's not so obvious to anyone but you.Concerning debauchery I think any sane person will see the results on our streets driven primarily by so-called brainy teachers at our colleges and universities. Perhaps mayhem would have been a better word for it.
And again, be specific about what exactly you think these teachers are doing. What debauchery are they influencing or coercing out of these kids that otherwise wouldn't have manifested?
What "mayhem" do you see on the streets right now? Are you talking about the protests in the US? Because that has nothing to do with christianity or atheism, it has to do with civil rights.
It's ironic to see the "no true scotsman" fallacy in full force from a scotsman.Religious people may sit around waiting for something to happen but a Christian won't and doesn't if he or she really belongs to Jesus Christ.
You're going to judge the validity of a religion based off how confused your friends, relatives, and foes are by your beliefs? If your friends, family, and foes all agree that you're doing something wrong maybe you actually are, ever think of that? They say that if everywhere you go smells like , maybe you're the one that smells like , not everyone else. Life altering isn't really a important qualifier for religious truth either. A broken neck is life changing too. So is a traumatic brain injury or paranoid schizophrenia.and if there is no God how is it possible for so many over the years to have their lives altered in such a way as to baffle relatives, friends and foes alike?
The effect something has on your life is not necessarily an indicator of the validity of the belief. There's plenty of perfectly happy idiots out there who's life is probably better off for the stupid they believe, but that doesn't make it true. Refer to what I said about Santa earlier.