The Fool wrote: > >> *Most* religious fanatics are not rational. But some religious >> fanatics are rational, and most religious people are rational > > If some were rational, those some could be talked out > of having idiotic religious beliefs. > Because the idiotic part of most religious beliefs ** is a matter of opinion, and does not contradict any experiment **.
It's idiotic just because you begin with the axiom that "if God existed, he would act the way I would act, if I were omni*.*". >> _You_ think you know what God thinks. Why God >> didn't write the cure for cancer in the Bible, instead of those >> rules of how a son of Levi should dress in certain ceremonies? > > I have high standards. God (this one anyway), does not > meet those standards. The god of the bible is supposed > to omniscient, but bible verses contradict this. The god of > the bible is supposed to be > omnipotent, but bible verses also contradict this. The god > of the bible is supposed to be good and do good things, > but bible verses show this god > doing evil. The god of bible is supposed to be unable to > lie, but bible verses show the god of the bible lying and > instructing others to lie. The god of the bible is supposed > to be able to predict the future, but > the god of the bible gets the future [now the past and > present] wrong. The god of the bible is a fraud. > Great! So there ain't no god just because there are parts of the bible that contradict the idea that god is omni*.*? Face it: you can't prove the non-existence of God. BTW, you can't prove the existence of God, either, because for every god you prove to exist, there might be another one above this one. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
