Clarifying my last post

Firstly, somebody called crusader for truth wrote on my last blog post:
"Mike, sorry dude but I don't think that's what Dawkins was saying at all. You have to marvel at the ways of the world, and the beauty of nature, but that doesn't mean that a god of any kind made these things."

I agree that we dont need a sky daddy to marvel at the world, however dawkins does believe we are robots. In an interview he said the following:
Far from it. A robot to me, then and now, is potentially an exceedingly complicated and indeed intelligent being. I was using the word robot as almost a sort of poetic evocation of the idea that here is this fantastically complicated machine which has been programmed to do something. What interested me is that it has been in advance programmed to work by all manner of complicated, flexible and if necessary intelligent means towards one end, which is the propagation of the DNA which did the programming.http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/genes_and_determinsm.shtml

More atheist discrimination

ive noticed a common method of discrimination on the internet. Often websites will ask if you are a robot (with a yes/no) option or a set of random words you need to type. However this assumes that people arent just biological robots which is contary to what richard dawkins teaches.

How people should think

I think there are some fundamental things which need explaining. Most xians dont seem to get these rules and it caused them to come up with really stupid arguments. They are:

1)If it supports atheism then its proberly true. You see, xians have a reputation for lying and getting things wrong(just look at the creationist movement) whereas atheists dont. Lets put it like this, if someone came to you and said they saw a flying pig...then someone else said they had evidence the first person hadnt seen a flying pig. Who would you believe? So information which supports atheism is more reliable.

2)If it supports xianity then it isnt true. The reverse of point 1. people dont rise from the dead so any argument that suggests otherwise is invalid

3)If its on the internet then its proberly true (taking into account points 1 and 2) The internet isnt run by the governement or the church and so anyone can post the truth on it.

This ties into the sceptical aproach that only believs things backed up by good evidence and logic.

Bible 5.2

Every few years they bring out a new version of Microsoft windows or patches to fix bugs and make imrpovements. Now why doesnt your sky daddy provide updates and new versions of the bible?

Evidence found in the bible itself

now 1 corinthians 15 is the earliest summary of what the church believed. Conspicuously missing from it are:
-the feeding of the 5000
-jebus walking on water
-jebus being born from a virgin
-the empty tomb
-the story of the good samaritan

Therefore paul never believed any of this crap listed above or hed have mentioned it and it is all later editions to your blind faith.

Are all the references to jebus xian forgeries?

Now I think ive hit gold with this one. I was thinking about how bart ehrman makes a big thing of how we dont have the origional manuscripts for the bible and so dont know what the origionals said. Well what if we use his argument and apply it to the question if wheather jebus existed? Suppose none of the origional manuscripts mention jebus and every reference to jebus in the bible were a textual variant. Well, then the bible would have never mentioned jebus. Seeing all the other references to jebus are known to be xian forgeries we know xians were faking documents to justify there a priori assumption jebus existed. Moreover earl dhorethy has pointed out that there are pssages in the bible that clearly state jebus didnt exist. So can you prove to me that any of the references to jebus were in the original manuscripts when we dont have the origional manuscripts?

THE REASON PROJECT

The much anticipated reason project is here....

For those who dont know what the reason project is, then it is a website ran by Sam Harris, with the help of some of atheisms greatest minds (richard dawkins, bill maher etc) It include various articles plus an updated bersion of the skeptics annotated bible. Wow.

Unfortunatly there isnt much content on it yet, but so far it look amazing.