John01 Wrote:Dear Icecub,
You are not alone; I do not accept the New Testament interpretation that finds only Christians will be saved. I do not believe that a caring God would exclude other faiths who also believe in a divine creator. I tend to regard Atheism as a belief held by closed minds. I like the quote from a biologist who stated that the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop. It is natural to question faith. If we had incontrovertible proof of our creator then faith would not be required.
Closed minded exclusion or derision of those considered outside the fold by “Christians†is clearly identified by the bible as un Christian action. There is a lot of truth to the saying "Don't take God's name in vain"
Hello John
Regarding this part of your post:
life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop: just the following:
You are using a print shop as an example, but it is just another version of
the Boeing 747 allusion from Fred Hoyle's famous argument against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself on the primordial earth. According to Hoyle, the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the probability that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner.
Hoyle obviouslydoesn't understand the first thing about natural selection.
Living organisms developed through culminative steps, not by a single-step chance.
The apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer at all. 14 billion years of evolution must be taken into account - there is no question of an explosion in a print shop.
The Argument From Design is also often stated by the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.
The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.
Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).
Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.
Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.
Now regarding your statement that
Atheism is a belief held by closed minds: Religious groups sometimes attempt to portray Atheism as simply being another religion, placing it on a par with any other belief system, however Atheism is not a religion nor a belief system.
Religion is defined as a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. As Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural power, it cannot be defined as a religion or belief system.
Now on to being closed minded: Atheist don't rely on one book only like theists do. Atheists do a lot of research taking science, biology, history and a whole lot more study fields into account, verifiable facts - hence the fact that they don't have or need faith.
I will continue this debate later.
Sam.
orry: 
