Re: Evidence of God

On 1 Dec 2003 23:44:46 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Al Evan), Message
ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
alt.atheism;

>stoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> On 29 Nov 2003 15:19:07 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Crowley),
>> Message ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> alt.atheism;

(snip)

>> >The best all round book I know on this general topic of evidence for
>> >Biblical references is Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a
>> >verdict - Volume 1".  There is a Volume II, but it mainly deals with
>> >"Biblical Criticism".  I think you would probably find it a bit
>> >boring, unless you are inclined that way.
>> >
>> >However I would highly recommend Volume 1 of "EVidence that demands a
>> >verdict".  It is straight forward, and backs up its claims with cross
>> >references where they are available.
>> 
>> Quite a few people in aa have read McDowell's "work" and have indicated
>> it's nothing but rubbish.
>> 
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml
>> 
>> Mr. Lowder has analyzed the book and his findings are at the above link.
>> 
>> Whoops, there's a second book entitled:
>> The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 
>> 
>> It's review is below:
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/newetdav.html
>> 
>> >Bob Crowley.

>#################################
>Stoney:
>reference to Lowder's critique of McDowell:
>I read the introduction and Chapter 1:  Farrell Till's critique of
>McDowell.

I've neither read McDowell or the critique.  I have no interest in
either.  I did the digging strickly for you, as I was aware the critique
existed and thought you'd find both sides of interest.  If it is of
interest-great.  If it is not of interest-great.

(snip)
         

   
             Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
               and
          SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}