luke is a 2000 year old book written by some one we know nothing of other than his own accounts of himself
hawkins is a scentist, he supplies evidnece for what he beilves. sceicne is rigrous, claims made by people are challnged. exspremnets have to be reapeatble. relgious belif is completly impossible do disprove. some one simply states that somthing is true. if you ask why they just say that they have faith. which is essential saying well i beilve it. you can ever test wether what they are saying is true. you cant do that in science. you dont read in new secintist "hawkins belives that the unverse is like this becuase he thinks it would be nice". know scintfic theories are basesd on reasnable exspalntions with logical reasoning. relgion is based on 2000 year old unsported accounts. any senible historan would questions the truth of many accounts of ceasars account of counquering britain. they wouldnt accpt it as objective fact like christians do with luke. there is clear and obvious diffecne between making stuff up an creating reasnable exspalntion of events
(, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:10, Share, Reply)
You forget the unarguable corroborative books also!
Matthew, Mark and John ;)
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!, Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:18,
Share,
Reply)