@PrinceOfPeace316-of Baal. Early in Israel's history, Yahweh was considered a member of El's pantheon of deities, including Baal and Asherah. Thus, El and Yahweh were historically two different deities.
@PrinceOfPeace316-As well as Elohim, El Elyon, El Roi, El Shaddai, El 'Olam. And "El" is derived from the even more ancient Sumerian wind god Enlil. The El titles were a form of the Canaanite El-religion the Israelites adopted as they settled into Canaan. Yahweh was not known until the moses narrative after the period of Babylonian exile. It was then that El and Yahweh were merged into one deity. That is why the Israelites elevated their tribal Yahweh as supreme in response to the rising fame
@PrinceOfPeace316-It is traditional judaism and christianity that believed Israel's religion from its beginnings was monotheistic, but modern scholarship, based on the found differences & perceived source material, contend Israel did not hold a pure monotheism until the exilic time 6-7th century, where it is thought the first 5 books to be produced. The Canaanite god EL was the supreme god of mankind and all creatures. Linguistically, it is where the "el" in Isra(EL) originates.
@PrinceOfPeace316- Also keep in mind that the Sumerian creation flood myths were not documentations of real events, but poetry used to teach a lesson. The same stories were adsorbed into the Babylonian mythology. They were later used by the Israelites, who too, saw them as useful stories. And the Israelites didn't simply retell the stories, they modified them to give a different message, using the stories as a way to depict a single moral god, instead of many capricious gods.
@stevenp25100-the genesis account. They can't ignore the genetic biological evidence. Add to that the same creation myths of the earlier ancient near eastern mythology the bible later built on, and the genesis account crumbles. Everything is dependent on the genesis account like a domino effect. Without the introduction of sin into the world of mankind according to genesis, there can be no redemption plan from sin of the latter Christ account of a plan "set before creation".
@rooio3 The funny thing is that you assume that the bible borrows from other religions when in fact that Baal in the bible was so dangerous because of the similar depiction? If you study the near eastern religions you can see a slight similarity in depictions, however this does not mean that they borrowed from it. The Torah wasn't written til a few thousands years after the events. Other civilizations could have written them down after the flood.
@PrinceOfPeace316- You lack knowledge concerning the subject. Ancient near eastern culture PRE-DATE the biblical. Anyone who studies ancient history knows this. We know the Canaanites emerged before the Israelites. We know the Sumerians were there before any other civilization developed. Therefore, Baal in the bible, is an infusion of an older mythical deity of the Canaanite culture. The creation and flood stories nearly copy the exact same narrative structures of the earlier Sumerian
@PrinceOfPeace316- creation flood myths. The Sumerians existed 1,000s of yrs before the Israelites. That is why we know the Torah wasn't written a few thousand years after claimed events. Sumerians were polytheistic, whose gods were creator gods.They routinely experienced flooding in the region, the reason why the floods occur in their mythical narratives.To acknowledge their mythology would be to affirm the existence of multiple creator gods, tossing out the biblical narrative anyway.
@PrinceOfPeace316- The oldest rocks on the earth date to about 3.8 billion years ago. The earth's accurate stratigraphic record, studied for nearly two centuries, made it possible not only to measure the lengths of the eras,periods, and epochs, but also to check the relative order of these geologic time units. DNA evidence as well as physical evidence reveal ancient humans migrated roughly 200,000 years ago. The first recorded civilization emerged in Mesopotamian around 4000 BCE.
@PrinceOfPeace316- Just to give you a timeframe of civilizations- the Mesolithic culture existed from 12,500-9,500BCE in eastern Mediterranean. Sumerian civilization emerged around 4,000BCE, Egypt 3000BCE, China 2200BCE, Minoan 2000BCE, Babylonian 1700BCE, Semitic 1500BCE, Indian 1500BCE, Greco-Roman 1100BCE.
@rooio3 Why else would YHWY command the Israelites the destroy their tribe? Baal was so deceiving and deceptive. You just can't see it and refuse to. You are just as bias as any theist.
@PrinceOfPeace316-"Why else would YHWY command the Israelites the destroy their tribe? Baal was so deceiving and deceptive"-In the Canaanite pantheon, Baal was the son of El,(shocking El -the supreme Canaanite god-is mentioned in genesis whose blessing Abraham accepted). Yahweh was originally worshiped with similar local gods within west Semitic and Canaanite religion, known as a storm god with similar attributes of the storm god Baal. That we know from much older artifacts of these cultures.
@stevenp25100-One very important thing people don't seem to understand regarding Christ. The human Genome proves all of humanity could not have originated from two people. The population never got below around 10,000 in human existence on the earth. Our own genes also tell us we share genes with chimps, mice, fish, flies, plants, yeast, worms, and bacteria. That is now a scientific fact. It's the reason why recently conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe
@stevenp25100-It also would make no sense if they claimed a "bill" lived there in the past, yet their is no tangible proof or record of such a person, and no personal artifacts from bill himself. Especially if the claims were made by people who weren't even there when he was living in the town. Also if they were able to find records of people living in the town centuries or millennium before it is claimed "bill" lived there, or even of people during the period he lived there.
I heard from christians who have read both Misquoting Jesus and Misquoting Truth is that they felt Jones agreed with Ehrman much more than disagreeing, because Ehrman didn't say anything that hadn't been known for years now. They differed on opinion of interpretations of certain texts, alternatives to a few conclusions, rather than exposing. Many thought Misquoting Truth was not that much of a threat to their faith however, since it just addresses credibility. Look forward to your assessment
Thanks man, I liked your last book reviews, I'll definitely get sam harris's book. I'm going thorugh God's Undertaker by john lennox. I know your're reading atheist books, but it's pretty good. I've been meaning to read Dawkin's book, but I know most his agruments and really don't wanna support him lol. Maybe I'll get it from the library or something.
Not a bad way to investigate, Justin. Your doing opposite of what I did, study religions. However, I would focus less on "atheists" and more on evidence that can be evaluated. Even I haven't read any of Sam Harris stuff, or any of those books. My stance on religions are based on my studies of ancient religions, the ancient world, the historical findings, archeological findings, and then the technological advancements that shed further light on certain issues, & recent scientific discoveries.
@stevenp25100- "My favorite is when new verbatim copies of scirptures are found and Acient cities that atheist claimed never exsisted are "discovered"- Yes, like the discovery of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures within the same region existing long before biblical ones, in fact never to be mentioned in biblical scripture in its account of rise in the middle east. It also show us where these mythical stories of the bible originated, later to be modified and transformed.
It is way to compelling for me to resist the arguments of the atheists. I gave up. Why do you think the atheists are they growing so fast? They are not putting a gun to anyone's head. They are just really smart people.
I read Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' right through a couple of years back. Always good to get familiar with what the opposition are doing. Sadly though, Dawkins himself is on record as saying that he hasn't even read the Bible right through (see revelation tv debate). Sad that someone who spends so long attacking it hasn't even read it. I have also found that many atheistic evolutionists haven't even read Darwin's Origin of Species. Amazing what one discovers when one probes a little.
@Shazoolo- "I have also found that many atheistic evolutionists haven't even read Darwin's Origin of Species." Well, the reason for that is due to the fact that the origin of species was written in 1859. So it isn't necessary. The theory of evolution has updated based on new evidence in biology due to technological advancement. Like many things with science, including the big bang, those models always adapt with new evidence. The concept remains, but it is always based on what the data show.
@Shazoolo "Dawkins himself is on record as saying that he hasn't even read the Bible right through (see revelation tv debate). Sad that someone who spends so long attacking it hasn't even read it"
That doesn't follow at all. Dawkins obviously has to have read most of the bible to write what he has written. Reading the *entire* thing is neither necessary for pointing out its barbarism, nor understanding the main message. It's not like it's a novel. It's a collection of completely separate books.
@Shazoolo- And the evidence wouldn't necessarily be new, just simply what we are unaware of that hasn't yet been discovered. What we know now, Darwin could not have known in the past due to limited technology. Scientific theories are not like hypothesis. Theories simply attempt to explain the evidence. They are based on what has been observed and studied.
@Shazoolo "I have also found that many atheistic evolutionists haven't even read Darwin's Origin of Species. Amazing what one discovers when one probes a little."
I've actually read the origin of the species, but it's far from the cutting edge of evolutionary theory and is not in any way required reading by anyone. Nor does it have a special position other than its historical position. It is, however, surprisingly readable, and I'd recommend it to anyone with a minor interest in classics.
@kberka If you were ever truly born-again, a simple book wouldn't make you give up your faith. Look at it like this...say for instance someone writes a book giving a bunch of reason as to why they think your mom doesn't exist, or that she shouldn't be loved, would you stop loving her and believing she's real? Don't think so.
@conqueringthruchrist "Look at it like this...say for instance someone writes a book giving a bunch of reason as to why they think your mom doesn't exist, or that she shouldn't be loved, would you stop loving her and believing she's real? Don't think so."
For that analogy to work, you could never have met your mom, and would be declaring that "Mom is a feeling" etc. Either way, the amount of contradictory religions out there is a good reason for any theist to think they could be mistaken..
@Gnomefro Well, for truly born-again Christians...we have "met" God He's much ore than a "feeling". Just because something can't be seen with the physical eyes, doesn't mean it's not real. In fact for those of us who truly know God, He's MORE real than anyone, or anything in the physical realm.
@conqueringthruchrist - the same statements are made for the many other differing religions with completely different deities. Therefore that would suggest multiple gods exist that people "feel" and talk to, much like children do with invisible friends. By this notion, there is no reason to think this isn't merely perception formed in people's minds since we see the same way of thinking in religious minded people in many cultures.
@rooio3 I honestly haven't heard of other religions in which they believe in a diety they can literally converse with. The Muslims have "Allah", but go strictly by the Quran, the Buddhists have Buddha, but he was an actual person living in the physical world...etc, etc. If there is an account of supposed other diety's besides Christianity's (Father God, Jesus and Holy Spirit) literally having conversations with modern people beyond just what's written in their books, I've yet to hear of it.
@conqueringthruchrist- There are much more religions than those few mentioned. You didn't even address the ones in existing in the middle east in the times before biblical religion emerged. We know Israel emerged out of Canaanite culture, part of a subset unlike how the bible depict. Even christianity of today is not necessarily christianity during its conception. And christians don't "literally converse" with anything. They talk to air, yes. Essential talking to something they believe to be
@conqueringthruchrist- real. But there is no instance of any deity actively talking to anyone. It exist only in written form. But then, anything can exist in writing. Reality is a different story. Many people talk to a "god", but perceive replies only in events of their lives, not through direct communication, which simply anyone can do and not necessarily believe in a god to form the same conclusions. Many mentally ill people too can make the exact same claim of talking to invisible things.
@rooio3 I think you have to lend at least some credability to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in world history believe in a "invisible" diety. If I went to a town looking for a guy named Bill and asked 100 people: if 90 said they knew Bill, 8 said they never heard of Bill and 2 said there is no Bill. I would be much more inclined to believe that Bill did live in that town despite 8 people not knowing and 2 not believing. (borrowed from Dinesh D'Souza )
@stevenp25100-"I think you have to lend at least some credability to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in world history believe in a "invisible" diety"- that doesn't make it real. A majority of the ancient world did the same thing. It's human history. But we know so much now. "Bill" is not like a deity many people profess to believe. It would make no sense when the 90 people say they "know Bill", yet have never seen or talked directly to him. That make their claim irrelevant.
Well I find it admirable that you are examining both sides. But however it will only do you good if you haven't already decided what is true ahead of time. Read Dawkins first. He is a very good writer, and although Dawkins doesn't have the best arguments they are certainly better than any creationist argument I have ever heard. Read his book "the greatest show on earth".
@PrinceOfPeace316-of Baal. Early in Israel's history, Yahweh was considered a member of El's pantheon of deities, including Baal and Asherah. Thus, El and Yahweh were historically two different deities.
rooio3 6 months ago
@PrinceOfPeace316-As well as Elohim, El Elyon, El Roi, El Shaddai, El 'Olam. And "El" is derived from the even more ancient Sumerian wind god Enlil. The El titles were a form of the Canaanite El-religion the Israelites adopted as they settled into Canaan. Yahweh was not known until the moses narrative after the period of Babylonian exile. It was then that El and Yahweh were merged into one deity. That is why the Israelites elevated their tribal Yahweh as supreme in response to the rising fame
rooio3 6 months ago
@PrinceOfPeace316-It is traditional judaism and christianity that believed Israel's religion from its beginnings was monotheistic, but modern scholarship, based on the found differences & perceived source material, contend Israel did not hold a pure monotheism until the exilic time 6-7th century, where it is thought the first 5 books to be produced. The Canaanite god EL was the supreme god of mankind and all creatures. Linguistically, it is where the "el" in Isra(EL) originates.
rooio3 6 months ago
@PrinceOfPeace316- Also keep in mind that the Sumerian creation flood myths were not documentations of real events, but poetry used to teach a lesson. The same stories were adsorbed into the Babylonian mythology. They were later used by the Israelites, who too, saw them as useful stories. And the Israelites didn't simply retell the stories, they modified them to give a different message, using the stories as a way to depict a single moral god, instead of many capricious gods.
rooio3 6 months ago
good luck. is your quest one of truth or debate?
rd1999 6 months ago
@stevenp25100-the genesis account. They can't ignore the genetic biological evidence. Add to that the same creation myths of the earlier ancient near eastern mythology the bible later built on, and the genesis account crumbles. Everything is dependent on the genesis account like a domino effect. Without the introduction of sin into the world of mankind according to genesis, there can be no redemption plan from sin of the latter Christ account of a plan "set before creation".
rooio3 6 months ago
@rooio3 The funny thing is that you assume that the bible borrows from other religions when in fact that Baal in the bible was so dangerous because of the similar depiction? If you study the near eastern religions you can see a slight similarity in depictions, however this does not mean that they borrowed from it. The Torah wasn't written til a few thousands years after the events. Other civilizations could have written them down after the flood.
PrinceOfPeace316 6 months ago
@PrinceOfPeace316- You lack knowledge concerning the subject. Ancient near eastern culture PRE-DATE the biblical. Anyone who studies ancient history knows this. We know the Canaanites emerged before the Israelites. We know the Sumerians were there before any other civilization developed. Therefore, Baal in the bible, is an infusion of an older mythical deity of the Canaanite culture. The creation and flood stories nearly copy the exact same narrative structures of the earlier Sumerian
rooio3 6 months ago
@PrinceOfPeace316- creation flood myths. The Sumerians existed 1,000s of yrs before the Israelites. That is why we know the Torah wasn't written a few thousand years after claimed events. Sumerians were polytheistic, whose gods were creator gods.They routinely experienced flooding in the region, the reason why the floods occur in their mythical narratives.To acknowledge their mythology would be to affirm the existence of multiple creator gods, tossing out the biblical narrative anyway.
rooio3 6 months ago
@PrinceOfPeace316- The oldest rocks on the earth date to about 3.8 billion years ago. The earth's accurate stratigraphic record, studied for nearly two centuries, made it possible not only to measure the lengths of the eras,periods, and epochs, but also to check the relative order of these geologic time units. DNA evidence as well as physical evidence reveal ancient humans migrated roughly 200,000 years ago. The first recorded civilization emerged in Mesopotamian around 4000 BCE.
rooio3 6 months ago
@PrinceOfPeace316- Just to give you a timeframe of civilizations- the Mesolithic culture existed from 12,500-9,500BCE in eastern Mediterranean. Sumerian civilization emerged around 4,000BCE, Egypt 3000BCE, China 2200BCE, Minoan 2000BCE, Babylonian 1700BCE, Semitic 1500BCE, Indian 1500BCE, Greco-Roman 1100BCE.
rooio3 6 months ago
@rooio3 Why else would YHWY command the Israelites the destroy their tribe? Baal was so deceiving and deceptive. You just can't see it and refuse to. You are just as bias as any theist.
PrinceOfPeace316 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrinceOfPeace316-"Why else would YHWY command the Israelites the destroy their tribe? Baal was so deceiving and deceptive"-In the Canaanite pantheon, Baal was the son of El,(shocking El -the supreme Canaanite god-is mentioned in genesis whose blessing Abraham accepted). Yahweh was originally worshiped with similar local gods within west Semitic and Canaanite religion, known as a storm god with similar attributes of the storm god Baal. That we know from much older artifacts of these cultures.
rooio3 6 months ago
@stevenp25100-One very important thing people don't seem to understand regarding Christ. The human Genome proves all of humanity could not have originated from two people. The population never got below around 10,000 in human existence on the earth. Our own genes also tell us we share genes with chimps, mice, fish, flies, plants, yeast, worms, and bacteria. That is now a scientific fact. It's the reason why recently conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe
rooio3 6 months ago
@stevenp25100-It also would make no sense if they claimed a "bill" lived there in the past, yet their is no tangible proof or record of such a person, and no personal artifacts from bill himself. Especially if the claims were made by people who weren't even there when he was living in the town. Also if they were able to find records of people living in the town centuries or millennium before it is claimed "bill" lived there, or even of people during the period he lived there.
rooio3 6 months ago
I heard from christians who have read both Misquoting Jesus and Misquoting Truth is that they felt Jones agreed with Ehrman much more than disagreeing, because Ehrman didn't say anything that hadn't been known for years now. They differed on opinion of interpretations of certain texts, alternatives to a few conclusions, rather than exposing. Many thought Misquoting Truth was not that much of a threat to their faith however, since it just addresses credibility. Look forward to your assessment
rooio3 6 months ago
Thanks man, I liked your last book reviews, I'll definitely get sam harris's book. I'm going thorugh God's Undertaker by john lennox. I know your're reading atheist books, but it's pretty good. I've been meaning to read Dawkin's book, but I know most his agruments and really don't wanna support him lol. Maybe I'll get it from the library or something.
stevenp25100 6 months ago
Not a bad way to investigate, Justin. Your doing opposite of what I did, study religions. However, I would focus less on "atheists" and more on evidence that can be evaluated. Even I haven't read any of Sam Harris stuff, or any of those books. My stance on religions are based on my studies of ancient religions, the ancient world, the historical findings, archeological findings, and then the technological advancements that shed further light on certain issues, & recent scientific discoveries.
rooio3 6 months ago
@rooio3 "historical findings, archeological findings"
My favorite is when new verbatim copies of scirptures are found and Acient cities that atheist claimed never exsisted are "discovered"
stevenp25100 6 months ago
@stevenp25100- "My favorite is when new verbatim copies of scirptures are found and Acient cities that atheist claimed never exsisted are "discovered"- Yes, like the discovery of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures within the same region existing long before biblical ones, in fact never to be mentioned in biblical scripture in its account of rise in the middle east. It also show us where these mythical stories of the bible originated, later to be modified and transformed.
rooio3 6 months ago
Peace be with you always.
BLUEFlSH7 6 months ago
It is way to compelling for me to resist the arguments of the atheists. I gave up. Why do you think the atheists are they growing so fast? They are not putting a gun to anyone's head. They are just really smart people.
kberka 6 months ago
I read Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' right through a couple of years back. Always good to get familiar with what the opposition are doing. Sadly though, Dawkins himself is on record as saying that he hasn't even read the Bible right through (see revelation tv debate). Sad that someone who spends so long attacking it hasn't even read it. I have also found that many atheistic evolutionists haven't even read Darwin's Origin of Species. Amazing what one discovers when one probes a little.
Shazoolo 6 months ago
@Shazoolo- "I have also found that many atheistic evolutionists haven't even read Darwin's Origin of Species." Well, the reason for that is due to the fact that the origin of species was written in 1859. So it isn't necessary. The theory of evolution has updated based on new evidence in biology due to technological advancement. Like many things with science, including the big bang, those models always adapt with new evidence. The concept remains, but it is always based on what the data show.
rooio3 6 months ago
@Shazoolo "Dawkins himself is on record as saying that he hasn't even read the Bible right through (see revelation tv debate). Sad that someone who spends so long attacking it hasn't even read it"
That doesn't follow at all. Dawkins obviously has to have read most of the bible to write what he has written. Reading the *entire* thing is neither necessary for pointing out its barbarism, nor understanding the main message. It's not like it's a novel. It's a collection of completely separate books.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Shazoolo- And the evidence wouldn't necessarily be new, just simply what we are unaware of that hasn't yet been discovered. What we know now, Darwin could not have known in the past due to limited technology. Scientific theories are not like hypothesis. Theories simply attempt to explain the evidence. They are based on what has been observed and studied.
rooio3 6 months ago
@Shazoolo "I have also found that many atheistic evolutionists haven't even read Darwin's Origin of Species. Amazing what one discovers when one probes a little."
I've actually read the origin of the species, but it's far from the cutting edge of evolutionary theory and is not in any way required reading by anyone. Nor does it have a special position other than its historical position. It is, however, surprisingly readable, and I'd recommend it to anyone with a minor interest in classics.
Gnomefro 6 months ago
Don't do it. I did it and I left Christianity. You will too!
kberka 6 months ago
@kberka If you were ever truly born-again, a simple book wouldn't make you give up your faith. Look at it like this...say for instance someone writes a book giving a bunch of reason as to why they think your mom doesn't exist, or that she shouldn't be loved, would you stop loving her and believing she's real? Don't think so.
conqueringthruchrist 6 months ago
@conqueringthruchrist "Look at it like this...say for instance someone writes a book giving a bunch of reason as to why they think your mom doesn't exist, or that she shouldn't be loved, would you stop loving her and believing she's real? Don't think so."
For that analogy to work, you could never have met your mom, and would be declaring that "Mom is a feeling" etc. Either way, the amount of contradictory religions out there is a good reason for any theist to think they could be mistaken..
Gnomefro 6 months ago
@Gnomefro Well, for truly born-again Christians...we have "met" God He's much ore than a "feeling". Just because something can't be seen with the physical eyes, doesn't mean it's not real. In fact for those of us who truly know God, He's MORE real than anyone, or anything in the physical realm.
conqueringthruchrist 6 months ago
@conqueringthruchrist - the same statements are made for the many other differing religions with completely different deities. Therefore that would suggest multiple gods exist that people "feel" and talk to, much like children do with invisible friends. By this notion, there is no reason to think this isn't merely perception formed in people's minds since we see the same way of thinking in religious minded people in many cultures.
rooio3 6 months ago
@rooio3 I honestly haven't heard of other religions in which they believe in a diety they can literally converse with. The Muslims have "Allah", but go strictly by the Quran, the Buddhists have Buddha, but he was an actual person living in the physical world...etc, etc. If there is an account of supposed other diety's besides Christianity's (Father God, Jesus and Holy Spirit) literally having conversations with modern people beyond just what's written in their books, I've yet to hear of it.
conqueringthruchrist 6 months ago
@conqueringthruchrist- There are much more religions than those few mentioned. You didn't even address the ones in existing in the middle east in the times before biblical religion emerged. We know Israel emerged out of Canaanite culture, part of a subset unlike how the bible depict. Even christianity of today is not necessarily christianity during its conception. And christians don't "literally converse" with anything. They talk to air, yes. Essential talking to something they believe to be
rooio3 6 months ago
@conqueringthruchrist- real. But there is no instance of any deity actively talking to anyone. It exist only in written form. But then, anything can exist in writing. Reality is a different story. Many people talk to a "god", but perceive replies only in events of their lives, not through direct communication, which simply anyone can do and not necessarily believe in a god to form the same conclusions. Many mentally ill people too can make the exact same claim of talking to invisible things.
rooio3 6 months ago
@rooio3 I think you have to lend at least some credability to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in world history believe in a "invisible" diety. If I went to a town looking for a guy named Bill and asked 100 people: if 90 said they knew Bill, 8 said they never heard of Bill and 2 said there is no Bill. I would be much more inclined to believe that Bill did live in that town despite 8 people not knowing and 2 not believing. (borrowed from Dinesh D'Souza )
stevenp25100 6 months ago
@stevenp25100-"I think you have to lend at least some credability to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in world history believe in a "invisible" diety"- that doesn't make it real. A majority of the ancient world did the same thing. It's human history. But we know so much now. "Bill" is not like a deity many people profess to believe. It would make no sense when the 90 people say they "know Bill", yet have never seen or talked directly to him. That make their claim irrelevant.
rooio3 6 months ago
Comment removed
rooio3 6 months ago
You should read "Letter from a Christian Citizen" by Douglas Wilson, who refutes Harris's nonsense in that book you are reading.
1tmoch 6 months ago
Welcome back.
PeaceInChristAlone 6 months ago
Well I find it admirable that you are examining both sides. But however it will only do you good if you haven't already decided what is true ahead of time. Read Dawkins first. He is a very good writer, and although Dawkins doesn't have the best arguments they are certainly better than any creationist argument I have ever heard. Read his book "the greatest show on earth".
OpenAirAtheist 6 months ago
Cool idea! I look forward to hearing about this.
TheLaughingOut 6 months ago