Abu Emile

Hello there

I have just finished reading the highly intelligent Martin-Frame debate,and I found it a model of civilized dialogue.However ,the first thing that came to my mind was this quatrain by Khayyam/Fitzgerald:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint ,and heard great argument
About it and about,but evermore
Came out by the same door wherein I went!

As a matter of fact,I find this type of subtle demonstrations always leading to dead-ends.At the end,the two professors still clung to their original positions.As for the reader ,I don't know if it could help changing any of his beliefs at all!

This is why I prefer to counter TAG with the more straight -forward methods of Paine,Ingersoll,Lewis,Darrow and Berggren:namely,to prove to the Christians that their God cannot be perfect if he is really behind this book of myths called the Bible.For this book,apart from repeating old Babylonian mythology(which in itself should be enough to remove any pretense of 'revelation' from it),is also full of numerous contradictions.Therefore,it cannot possibly be the word of a supposedly perfect God.Therefore ,this God is nothing but a myth...
However,I know that the human race is gullible in its majority,and even this line of reasoning will be insufficient to cure believers from their delusions.Otherwise,how could one explain the survival of the Judeo-Christian creeds after the fall of the Ptolemaic system of the world,in which "Heaven" and "Hell" were plain and simple physical locations?