[dark_lord]

Well, among other things he is apparently deliberately obtuse in his perspective on religion. For example, following the link I find he says:

But I didn't understand, and still don't, that they had only two children, both sons — and one of them killed the other — yet somehow they produced enough people to populate the Earth, without incest, which was a big no-no!

So he clearly hasn't bothered to read the very text he criticizes. And I mean that -- he says he didn't understand, and still doesn't -- when actually reading the text he is slamming he would quickly find that:

(a) They (Adam and Eve) did not only have 2 children. So the rest of his argument is immediately a non sequitur (does not follow).
(b) Apparently, for a "bright", he seems fairly obtuse about figures of speech, metaphors, symbolism, and other useful intellectual constructs with which the bible is quite packed.

He later makes the statement that: Aristotle, upon whose teachings much of Christianity is based...

Yeah, sure, the collected works of Aristotle are precisely upon which much of Christianity is based, yeah, you find them in all the church libraries. Why, just last Sunday a pastor at my local church was giving a fine sermon from "On Interpretation" and rambled on for 30 minutes on how there can be no affirmation or denial without a verb....

NOT! James Randi is a bag of hot gas. Check out your local Mensa chapter, you find a bunch of self-important neurotic idiots just like him who could solve all the worlds problems if only they were king.

[js1138]

The Biblical population was reduced at least one more time to the point where incest would have been necessary. And I believe there is at least one specific mention of incest being necessary.

[whattajoke]

As an equally obtuse dimbulb who can't infer just how the bible rectifies the Adam/Eve/one live son conundrum, I was hoping you'd supply the pertinent bible passages. And while you're at it, please help me and js1138 out with the post Flood gene pool miracle as well, thanks!

[whattajoke]

Well, among other things he is apparently deliberately obtuse in his perspective on religion.

Of course, you mean to say "My religion," right? Cause you and I both know if he had decided to point out some of the more fantastic and ridiculous passages in the Koran or the Upanishads, something tells me you'd be in agreeance.

[CobaltBlue]

>> fairly obtuse about figures of speech, metaphors, symbolism, and other useful intellectual constructs with which the bible is quite packed<<

Sez you. Who gets to pick which bits are metaphors and which bits aren't? The Young Earth Creationists are quite willing to argue that there are metaphors, just none in Genesis.

[jennyp]

He later makes the statement that: Aristotle, upon whose teachings much of Christianity is based...

Yeah, sure, the collected works of Aristotle are precisely upon which much of Christianity is based, yeah, you find them in all the church libraries. Why, just last Sunday a pastor at my local church was giving a fine sermon from "On Interpretation" and rambled on for 30 minutes on how there can be no affirmation or denial without a verb....

A small point, but I think Randi is referring to Aristotle's influence in Christian (well, Catholic at least) theology through Aquinas:

Aristotle, upon whose teachings much of Christianity is based, taught that there were "crystalline spheres" that carried the planets and stars on their celestial voyages, and that they were associated with incorporeal, undefined "movers" that provided the forces that kept them in motion. He thought that these "movers" were spiritual in nature, and that the relationship of a mover to its sphere was like that of a soul to its body. This view was amplified by later interpreters of Aristotle such as Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century who taught that baser matter was likewise conceived to have psychological properties.

I have no idea how influential Aristotle via Aquinas was on Catholic or Protestant theology, but I thought Aquinas had tried to merge some of Aristotle's respect for reason into the theology?