Re: Evidence of God

On 1 Dec 2003 04:13:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Crowley),
Message ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
alt.atheism;

>Libertarius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> stoney wrote:
>> 
>> > >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.
>> > 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,
>> 
>> ===>More rubbish. -- L.

>> > It's review is below:
>> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/newetdav.html
>
>If I were Joy from Middle Tennessee State University I would go ahead
>and read Josh McDowell's book anyway.  If the Atheists feel it is
>serious enough to spend a lot of time rebutting it, then it must have
>some literary value.  The closer an article or book is to the cutting
>edge of a debate, the more scrutiny it will attract.

Silly, Robert.  The review has nothing to do with the 'seriousness' or
the 'quality' of McDowell's 'research' and everything to do with
christians continual bringing up of that and other works of apologetics.

>Every new publisher's booklist usually has a book with a "new" theory
>on Christ for example.   A year or so later they are forgotten by
>nearly all.  There may be a bit of a flurry of criticism eg. when
>Barbara Thiering puts out a new book, but soon they are just an oddity
>on a library bookshelf.
>
>But if a seminal work appears then it usually attracts prolonged
>scrutiny.  The above review of MdDowell's book indicates it is worth
>criticising.

Not at all.  See above.

>So my suggestion is that Joy reads it anyway.  At least then she'll be
>in a position to know what the atheists are contending about.  And
>they can't criticise that motive.

You really are confused, Robert.  Your superstition is no different or
more important than "Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer."

However, you may find this of some interest.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/999077.asp?vts=113020031424

>Bob Crowley.

         

   
             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}