 |
Search this site |
All Rights Reserved Text: Copyright GWBAA Copyright of pictures acknowledged where known Having problems viewing this page? It performs best in Mozilla Firefox. 
|
0.6b ...or false The problem is, that while the facts may be true - a city was destroyed; the populace could not escape - the interpretation is almost certainly false. Jericho lies in an area that is prone to earthquake. Whether or not an army marched round the city blowing trumpets and shouting - and there is no evidence that one did - the city almost certainly collapsed from natural causes. (An alternate explanation is that such an army did march and the repeated thumping of feet weakened fortifications to the extent that they eventually collapsed.) Not only is there no evidence that God caused the walls to collapse, a review of the Biblical text confirms that the deity's only role in this story was to suggest the circumambulation of the city under attack. And that is something that was probably added by storytellers after the event. 0.6c Who said what, when, how and to whom? When we read that the LORD told the Israelites to do something, we ask ourselves, how did God do this? Did he bring them all together in a public meeting, or did he tell one or two priests that these were his orders? If he spoke to priests, how can we prove that their word does indeed come from God and is not merely their own invention? And given that the Old Testament was written down several centuries after the events it records, how much can we trust it as a record of actual events...? Take another, non-Biblical example. In Section 3 we compared two detectives examining a murder scene. The first detective was convinced that the murderer was the victim's rival in love and looked for evidence to confirm that theory. The second detective was open-minded. The first detective jumped to his conclusion and then interpreted the evidence he found (rationalisation) to justify his assumption. And while he arrests the wrong man, the real criminal escapes... Here's a third example - the appearance of design. Believers - particularly Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design - observe that elements of the universe and life on earth appear to have been designed. From "appear", they jump to the conclusion that those elements must have been designed. But in order to reach that conclusion, they ignore other evidence, as we will see in Chapter Three: God the creator? - evidence which confirms that a designer is unnecessary. There's a simple lesson to be learnt here: don't jump to conclusions. Examine all the evidence before coming to any conclusion. And remember that proof of part of theory (ancient Jericho collapsed) is not proof that the whole theory (the Bible confirms that God exists) is true. Next: Introduction: Section 7 No way 
Custom Search
Email us, pasting the URL into your letter with the comment This account is protected by Spamarrest. You will receive a one-off request to verify your email before it is delivered. |
If God existed, he would... admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create recognize that eternity is meaningless deny both heaven and hell disown all men and women who speak in his name denounce the harm caused by religious "morality" help the human race to thrive without him If God existed, he would be an atheist. What is the difference between science and faith? science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything faith is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing Which do you trust? "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God" ??? Check the answer |
|
Supporting advertisers helps to provide an income for The Atheist God. Clicking on advertiser links may allow these companies to gather and use information about your visit to this and other websites to provide you with advertisements about goods and services presumed to be of interest to you. |