The Wrods of God

Originally posted by orfeo
And finally... do you think God is some kind of pedant?

Obviously not.

Edit: I mean, obviously he's not.
Edit: God, that is.
Edit: Oh, but you figured that's what I meant, right?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sadly you took a very unscientific approach and have thus drawn a conclusion without having sufficient data to be significant. Many of the more vocal Christians on this site are actually creationists and any conclusions you draw about them may only apply to thier particular subset of all Christians. There are other important questions to consider like:
...[text shortened]... s should be seen as obvious as creationists deny the validity of almost all branches of science.

You raise valid points about non-native english speakers, age, etc. And I only spotted one spelling mistake in your well crafted post.
I did point out that my conclusions were based on tenuous data, to say the least (and that I was under the influence).
However, I genuinely believe that education is the enemy of religion. Fact dispels superstition. An educated mind is more likely to question the validity of claims that require a measure of faith rather than proof.
Believers can attempt to stem the tide by sending their children to faith based schools but we live in an increasingly technological world where the spread of ideas and information that may be contrary to religious beliefs is hard to avoid.

Originally posted by stocken
Obviously not.

Edit: I mean, obviously he's not.
Edit: God, that is.
Edit: Oh, but you figured that's what I meant, right?

Ha ha.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
You raise valid points about non-native english speakers, age, etc. And I only spotted one spelling mistake in your well crafted post.
I did point out that my conclusions were based on tenuous data, to say the least (and that I was under the influence).
However, I genuinely believe that education is the enemy of religion. Fact dispels superstiti ...[text shortened]... the spread of ideas and information that may be contrary to religious beliefs is hard to avoid.

I would agree that education is the enemy of religion, but not for the reasons you suggest.

As far as I can tell, non-religious people are often just as indoctrinated as religious people are, just with a different set of beliefs. Which they learnt through education.

It really is amazing how many 'facts' are simply a different set of assumptions that aren't any more valid than the assumptions that religious people hold. It seems the best way to recognise an assumption is NOT to share it.

Originally posted by orfeo
I would agree that education is the enemy of religion, but not for the reasons you suggest.

As far as I can tell, non-religious people are often just as indoctrinated as religious people are, just with a different set of beliefs. Which they learnt through education.

It really is amazing how many 'facts' are simply a different set of assumptions that aren ...[text shortened]... religious people hold. It seems the best way to recognise an assumption is NOT to share it.

Perhaps atheists do carry around assumptions that are in fact incorrect. But once shown the error of their ways the tendency is to discard the assumption in favour of the revealed reality.
Religious people have much greater difficulty with this problem. They will cling to the religious 'truth' in the face of reality or attempt to reconcile the meaning of their faith with the new information so that their belief is not compromised.
But facts, conflicting ideas and the 'truth' are so much more accessible these days that belief in a creator god who cares for us and then either welcomes us or burns us for eternity after our death is becoming an increasingly difficult position to defend.

Originally posted by ShallowBlue
Perhaps atheists do carry around assumptions that are in fact incorrect. But once shown the error of their ways the tendency is to discard the assumption in favour of the revealed reality.

Really?

There is a book called 'Who Moved the Stone' written by an atheist who became a Christian because, when he examined the Gospel accounts, he discarded his assumptions that the resurrection hadn't happened.

Why is it, do you think, that in contrast to that man, so many of the arguments of atheists start with the assumption that accounts of supernatural events MUST be false?

Originally posted by orfeo
Really?

There is a book called 'Who Moved the Stone' written by an atheist who became a Christian because, when he examined the Gospel accounts, he discarded his assumptions that the resurrection hadn't happened.

Why is it, do you think, that in contrast to that man, so many of the arguments of atheists start with the assumption that accounts of supernatural events MUST be false?

LOL.
Because almost all so called 'supernatural events' have a perfectly logical explanation. Also, these events usually happened long ago and are therefore unverifiable. (Not to mention that they had often been reported by addled believers drunk on religion).
Supernatural events are much rarer these days as they can more easily be investigated. People are also much better educated and can usually determine the cause of an event beyond the simple conclusion that 'God did it!'