Dark Moth

The award for most amazing sense of logic goes to...

I do not believe they were. But I could be thinking of the wrong tribe. As for primitive, compared with Romans, the Aztecs, the Turks, yes they were. Point is though, religion and progress are not always connected. As for progress, what you're saying is nothing new. Take the Age of Reason, for instance. Many believed that religion's time was over, but over two hundred years later, it's still a strong force in the world. I could be wrong, but I think to say that something as influential as religion going away in 100 years is a very big stretch.

Could be possible, but you have to be careful because there are many cases of the opposite being true. For instance, in history some of the more advanced civilizations have been religious while many primitive ones have not. For example, the Aztecs, one of the most advanced races in the Western hemisphere, were religious. However, the Huns, a civilization of primitive nomads, were not. Religion has been with humans for thousands of years. To say that it would disappear in 100, or even 500 years is a big stretch. 5000 maybe, but not 500.

This is actually what I thought, as I've heard it before. The thought it wasn't the Red sea, but some marsh that was prone to evaporation at times of the year, etc. However, the crossing of the red sea is important because it is supposed to depict a miracle. Crossing a marsh isn't much of a miracle. and I think another argument is that the Egyptians wouldn't record a loss (even tho they recorded other losses.) Penn & Teller did a Bull**** episode on it <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, the body of water in the book is not a marsh. That also, as you said, would not be much of a miracle. Also, ever hear of Nefertiti?

Just a link to a book cover, no overview or anything, can you fill us in? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here's an Amazon link with a description, this should help. http://www.amazon.com/Exodus-Story-Behind-...t/dp/0062509691 Unfortunately I have not read the whole book, only parts, as the copy I first found was in my school's library. Basically the guy deals with the geogrpahic evidence for some natural disaster that may have happened around the time of the Exodus and accounted for many of the occurences in the book. He explains it more in terms of a natural occurance than some form of divine influence. The book is based on some concepts like a volcanic eruption and ensuing natural causes that may have caused the plauges, the Hebrews actually not crossing the Red Sea but some other body of water, etc. There are some things in there that contradict Biblical teaching, but I thought someone who might want to learn more about it might want to take a look at it.

Since my other thread got killed, thanks to everyone for the suggestions. It looks like Firefox wins this round.

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc. Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just out of curiosity Kum, have you actuallly researched this yourself? Abraham, I mean.

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?q...s*listing*title Not a confirmation of the Exodus in any way, but you might find this of interest. It deals with archealogical, historical, and geographic evidence. Edit: Here's a better link. http://www.biblio.com/books/7026095.html

Not really. " That is not the only reason. Probably the biggest yes, but not the only.

Many people consider the Biblical God to be a fictional character. " But if you really want to know, the answer is simple: there is really no longer a widespread active belief in either god. Population, as Hades said.

You're going to literal with it. He mean your "atheistic" towards other gods. There isn't much to other than he wants you to remember that. I think he sees it as helping to disarm the argument and make it less personal. After all, if you don't belief in someone else's gods, how offended can you be when someone doesn't believe in yours? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He said 'we're all atheist', not that we're 'atheistic' towards other gods. Besides, I'm not sure 'atheistic' would be the right word to use in that situation. Exclusive maybe, not atheistic. Atheism implies the absence of the belief in any god whatsoever. And I'm never offended when someone says they don't believe in God. I don't agree with it, but I'm not offended.

That's a flawed concept though. I do not believe in Zeus, but I still believe in a god. That does not make me atheist. If I were atheist, I would not believe in any god at all.

No. But that does not make me atheist. So what's his point?

ZOMG! I'm going to download it! Let's just keep it serious for at least the first couple pages.

As Dawkins pointed on on his Colbert show appearance, we're all Atheist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ?

The articles author concludes the article by disagreeing with Dawkins and the other people in it. Dawkins is simply stating that if you want to believe in God you are going on pure faith, nothing else. In that regard, he says, it's just as easy to believe if Thor or faeries. As for the intelligence argument, well, you disagreeing doesn't mean you're right. For what it's worth, the author disagrees with Dawkins and doesn't dispute his statement of intelligence here. So one can assume the opinion isn't unjustifiable. It could be wrong, but it's not outright crazy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know. I was a little too hasty in my posting and ended up drawing the wrong conclusion. :"> Wouldn't be the first time it happened. Those whom the article is referring to, those that think religion is 'evil', need to cool down. As for intelligence, that's fine. I know it doesn't make me right, but I'm just disagreeing. And just to clarify, the whole 'inquisition' reference was a joke.

Never says that, but if you don't want to read the article, sweet. Just don't post. He isn't saying people are idiots for believing, he admits that there is a TINY chance god may exist, but he admits that there is a TINY chance Thor may exist. He makes fun of the argument that you can't "disprove" God <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it seems I misread the article. The article is what says "religion is evil", not Dawkins. But still, by saying what he's saying, he's implying that atheists are more intelligent than religious people, and I disagree.

Of course he'll have a backing. But it's stupid even still to say that most intelligent people are atheists. Studies and statistics can easily be warped or biased. You could probably get backing for it the other way around, too. (Note that the vast majority of those tests are done in the up to only the 1960s.) Hell, my class valedictorian was religious. Many intelligent people I have met personally are religious as well. Is Dawkins going to call them stupid or evil? It's both foolish and wrong. By saying what he's saying, he's calling me and pretty much the entire world unintelligent. Thanks, but I don't need some hardcore atheist trying to call me on my intelligence simply because of my choice of belief.

Pretty much the whole "religion is evil" and the "If you don't agree with me, you're stupid," part. This should draw Hades/Sand like a fly to dog crap.

LOL. What an idiot. Atheism: the new inquisition.

So now, I'm trying to look for a new browser to use. Question is, what browsers does everyone here use or recommend? Right now, I'm looking at Firefox 2.0, but I'd like to hear some opinions before deciding. Right now for internet browsing I have Safari and Netscape on my computer. I don't use Safari because it doesn't remember data and isn't compatible with everything, and Netscape is just way too slow. Plus, it sometimes quits out for no reason or freezes up. Keep in mind, I have an intel Mac on OS X and 512 MB of Ram. (I'm going to buy an extra 512 MB eventually, but not for a few months) If anyone has any advice to offer, please do. Thanks.

Well, I guess its not hard to use one, but its definitely not the easiest. I mean the MP3 player I have now I just drag and drop things from windows explorer. Thats a lot easier than going through iTunes. I'm also not a big fan of the wheel. I'd rather have some buttons. Mainly I just hate iTunes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've always found my iPod and iTunes really easy to use. For me it's always just drag and drop. Transferring music from CD's is a cinch, and all I have to do is select songs from my iTunes playlist and drop them into my iPod. Maybe my having a Mac makes it different, but so far I have yet to have any problems using either.

Eres un maricon.

^ Hades

Meh...I think I'll try out Firefox instead. One thing is for certain, I'm definitely going to stop using Netscape.