In a message dated April 2, 1998, WWCKFS writes:

I've seen a lot of 'hokum' in my time, such as the Heaven's Gate cult suicides, the tear-gassing religious cults of Japan, and the David Koresh 'fantasy' that resulted in a massacre - a self-fulfilled prophesy at that! WWCKFS' latest post is just another line of BS to add to the junkpile.

If anyone takes these 'prophesies' seriously, I suggest he read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason in which this magnificent individual analyzes the books of the Bible and demonstrates - by their own content - that each book is anonymous, and therefore without authority.

Most books in the Old Testament, Paine shows, could not have been written until decades or even centuries after the events they describe. Paine demonstrates this by drawing upon the statements of the Bible itself, their inconsistencies, and by use of reason (I know, a novel concept, eh?).

I challenge each believer participating in this e-mail debate to pick up a copy of Paine's excellent and well-prepared exposé of the absurdity of this barbaric and poorly compiled collection of books - known as the 'Old Testament' - in order to study Paine's examination of the books of the Old Testament, and provide any argument he hopes to invent in his effort to contradict Paine's findings.

Watching the believer grasp at straws, as this Mr. Hugh Ross does, will be entertaining in its own right.

I don't suppose Mr. Ross knows who the authors of the books of the Old Testament were, too? That remains a mystery, as Thomas Paine points out in his book.

Anyone care to take my challenge?

The whole idea, however, of evidence for the existence of a 'god' goes completely against the rudiments of faith, which require that there be no appeal to evidence. Evidence and faith are contradictory: if you have evidence for a claim, then you can demonstrate the truth of your claim through reason.

On the other hand, if you have no evidence for your claim, then you invent an epistemology, in order to persuade by fraud - or by force, which is called faith. Faiht and reason are contradictory by nature. Faith is only possible in the absence of reason. One does not need faith in order to accept a claim which can be demonstrated by reason.

Your doomsday prophesies do not fool me, and I doubt they fool others here, either. Creationist 'science' is nothing of the sort. Science does not begin with a conclusion and then set out to prove it. Creationism, however, does, tailoring any shred of remoteness into evidence to support its absurd claims. Science draws conclusions from existing evidence; creation attempts the opposite.

The again, a horse cannot draw its buggy unless he's in front of it.

All religious hokum, as that which Mr. Ross advances, rests on errant philosophical premises. Check your premises, if nothing else.

"Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics." -- Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism.

My advice to the religionist is: Get your own life.

Tindrbox

PS: Paine's book, The Age of Reason, can be found in most bookstores. If it's not on the shelf at your local Barnes and Noble, order it from the cashier. If I had children, it would be the one book on religion that I would have them read.

_________________________________