Look, at the end of the day, it's more than a little absurd to say, "Oh yeah, there was definitely a creator" and then go, "Well, of course these people who believe in this creator and that book are full of @#$#. It's obvious!"
I mean, first off, if we're being technical, we're talking about two groups arguing in favor of an intangible absolute that there is, just about by definition, NO WAY TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF.
That's a bit like being drunk off your ass at a party and going, "Yeah, I may be wasted, but at least I didn't puke on myself like THAT guy."
End of the day, even if you think the Bible is crap, I think there's a pretty compelling argument to be made for humans as being really crap at accurately transmitting messages - made moreso as the message is carried out over a few centuries. To dismiss it wholesale? Based on what? Because you knew some Christians who were dicks? Who hasn't? Ditto for Muslims, Jews, etc. Probably Buddhists are the only faith that haven't actively gone out to piss anyone else off. Just ain't in their coding, I guess (or they have really good P.R.).
Point being, there's not really a lot of merit to those blanket statements when any serious look at Christianity or any other doctrine or faith reveals a lot more nuance in belief, doctrine, how literally the scripture is taken, etc. And, if you're looking to start a dialog rather than putting a lot of people on the defensive by doing what looks like attacking their character in a serious way, this ain't the way to do it.
Subject: Re: Michael Behe VS Richard Dawkins 
Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:09 pm
Holley or Edelbrock?