1. Comment #7920 by vega on November 19, 2006 at 11:26 pm

From their website:

The Theory of Evolution the Cause

No teaching has contributed more to destroying man's confidence in the existence of God than the theory of evolution. Yet, that theory is completely false, and there is no scientist of any standing, who would dare claim that it has been proved indisputably true. The theory is propounded on the basis of implication and circumstantial evidence, that fails to satisfy the truly enquiring mind. This theory cannot provide any answer to the insurmountable problems that face society, but is itself responsible for the decline of morals, the break-up of family life, and the political antagonism that disgraces today's world. Yet the Bible, with its remarkable confirmation of prophecy vindicated beyond all shadow of doubt by the amazing fulfilment of that which it has predicted, can direct to a satisfying way of life that provides for the good of humanity and also presents a hope for the future (1 Timothy 4:8).

2. Comment #7922 by Roy on November 19, 2006 at 11:38 pm

Eh, what?
"Yet, that theory is completely false, and there is no scientist of any standing, who would dare claim that it has been proved indisputably true. The theory is propounded on the basis of implication and circumstantial evidence, that fails to satisfy the truly enquiring mind."

Over to you, Richard.....

3. Comment #7924 by Shaun on November 19, 2006 at 11:54 pm

Recently at our public library (in england) there was a "lecture" by some church group about intelligent design. My first thought was that it shouldnt be there, but I guess the room is available to anyone.

Regrettably I was not able to attend, one can only hope someone carries the torch of sanity to each of these affairs.

Would that I were erudite enough to present and defend a "God Delusion" lecture.

4. Comment #7925 by Shaun on November 19, 2006 at 11:56 pm

After checking it turns out to be the same shower.

http://www.watford-christadelphians.org.uk/

They do this every month?!?

5. Comment #7934 by walter on November 20, 2006 at 12:44 am

"No teaching has contributed more to destroying man's confidence in the existence of God than the theory of evolution."
Quite right.
"Yet, that theory is completely false."
Quite wrong.
"This theory cannot provide any answer to the insurmountable problems that face society."
Doesn't have too.

6. Comment #7938 by Skeptic Jim on November 20, 2006 at 1:06 am

Wow it looks like a few cages have been rattled.

7. Comment #7940 by walter on November 20, 2006 at 1:12 am

Here is a question to ponder.
Why has (mainstream) religion not long ago assimilated evolution as it has the Copernican model of the solar system?

8. Comment #7953 by James on November 20, 2006 at 2:19 am

Walter asks "Why has (mainstream) religion not long ago assimilated evolution as it has the Copernican model of the solar system?"

They have. Creationists are a large a vocal minority, not the mainstream. Many sects, perhaps even most, accept evolution with some degree of direction from God.

Catholics, for example, allow for the possibility that the physical body evolved, but insist that if it did it did so under God's direction and at any rate the soul was a special creation.

There's a fairly good overview here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm

9. Comment #7958 by FollowTheGourd on November 20, 2006 at 2:31 am

Followed their links to http://www.theevidence.org.uk/law2.htm.

To summarise, God exists because only he could notice that eating dodgy food makes you ill.

This is a good one too, from http://www.theevidence.org.uk/science2.htm:

"Neither the evolutionary nor the creationist explanation has any more intrinsic validity when used solely to explain similarities and differences between life forms. They are both opinions when considered from this viewpoint."

10. Comment #7964 by FollowTheGourd on November 20, 2006 at 2:40 am

As it's a Freepost address, if you don't want the leaflet, post it back to them and they will have to cover the costs.

11. Comment #7967 by Roy on November 20, 2006 at 2:46 am

What really gets to me is those who take EVERY word of the Bible as the truth, even the Noah's Ark rubbish. They should look at David Attenborough a bit more. For example,there are over 250,000 species of beetle in this world, did all the half million couples manage to hitch a lift?
One evangelical type website I looked at said "Ah but the animals Noah took were in fact, baby animals, so there would be enough room to fit them all on" Can you believe an adult person in the 21st Century actually wrote that?

12. Comment #7972 by walter on November 20, 2006 at 3:11 am

reply to #7953
My mistake. I guess I've gotten so used to seeing creationist literature splashed all over the internet (which one would certainly expect from a vocal minority) that I've sort of assumed that creationism was the general consensus. It probably doesn't help that as I drive to work I sometimes see signs (those detachable letter types often found outside church buildings) saying things like "The Rock of Ages NOT the Age of Rocks" or "Everyone, I was wrong -Darwin"

I guess what I was really trying to get at was what's the real angle of these creationist types? Surely they can still have God, free will, morals and the whole nine yards by simply becoming 'theistic' evolutionists.
Unless theistic evolution doesn't satisfy all of THEIR needs. So perhaps I should pose a more rephrased question to the forum.
What 'need' could be so strong as to make a creationist feel it is well worth embarrassing themselves by setting themselves up against the scientific community?

13. Comment #7979 by Jared on November 20, 2006 at 3:34 am

From the flyer:

"This talk will present clear evidence, not only that the God of the bible does indeed exist[...]"

Whoa, really? This is a first! We should all go and see what this evidence is like. I for one can't wait to hand in my atheist club membership card.

When are these people going to learn that feelings of wonder and words written 2000 years ago just don't count as evidence if you've got nothing else to back them up?

14. Comment #8012 by Nebularry on November 20, 2006 at 7:16 am

No doubt the Rhodes Arts Complex will be "standing room only". Such is the faith of the faithful. Idiots!

15. Comment #8163 by Steve M on November 20, 2006 at 2:44 pm

god sure works in mysterious ways....

11 Die When Tree Hits Nicaraguan Church
-
Monday, November 20, 2006


(11-20) 13:51 PST MANAGUA, Nicaragua (AP) --


A giant tree fell on an evangelical church in remote northeastern Nicaragua while an American pastor was delivering his sermon, killing 11 people including the clergyman, authorities said Monday.


Rev. Larry Wayne Poll, a 64-year-old native of Alabama, was killed Sunday while preaching at the church in the Nicaraguan town of Lupuas, near the Honduran border, said Rigoberto Gonzalez, a spokesman for Honduran police.


Two Hondurans and eight Nicaraguans also died, Gonzalez said. More than 100 people were in the church when heavy winds knocked down the tree.


"We all lament the tragedy," Gonzalez said.


Poll's body was taken to a morgue in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa, the closest major city to Lupuas, located near the Coco River that forms part of the border between the two Central American countries.


While both Honduras and Nicaragua are predominantly Roman Catholic, evangelical churches have made large inroads in recent years, especially in rural areas.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/11/20/international/i135146S81.DTL

16. Comment #8193 by Randy Ping on November 20, 2006 at 3:36 pm

Time to up their meds.

17. Comment #8329 by walter on November 20, 2006 at 9:59 pm

Another interesting question.
How did monotheism come to dominate the west and the middle east?
This is really a bit more rhetorical and is intended to reflect poorly upon organized religion.

18. Comment #8339 by Roy on November 20, 2006 at 11:20 pm

Jared,
"When are these people going to learn that feelings of wonder and words written 2000 years ago just don't count as evidence if you've got nothing else to back them up?"
Imagine if the Old Testament had just been recently discovered in a cave somehere. Archaeologists would read it and think "Oh is that what people believed in those days? how interesting !" Considering what we now know about the earth (indeed the universe) no one would take it at all seriously.

19. Comment #8688 by FollowTheGourd on November 22, 2006 at 2:00 am

This is from http://www.theevidence.org.uk/law2.htm

"Meat was permitted from animals which had cloven hoofs and which also chewed the cud. This meant that sheep, cows and deer could all be eaten.

This rule excluded all meat-eating animals. With the exception of pigs, we generally follow the same rule today.

We can safely eat pig meat in many countries today, but only because strict regulations protect us from becoming involved in the life cycle of the pig tapeworm or the pig roundworm. This can happen when people eat raw or undercooked pork or bacon containing the larvae of the tapeworm or roundworm. The results can include blindness, paralysis, epilepsy and even death.

Pigs also transmit a number of other infections, including the well-known salmonella bacteria. An even more serious infectious disease known as "pig-bel" is sometimes seen in the highlands of New Guinea following ritual pig kills and pork feasting."

Seriously, they are trying to use this to prove that god exists. What they are actually saying is that science has shown us how to make pork safe, but god didn't know.

20. Comment #9035 by Steve on November 23, 2006 at 9:30 am

I sent this flyer in, but unfortunately I was unable to attend the actual meeting. I, like Davin, would be very interested to know how it, or similar meetings, went.

21. Comment #9297 by Richard on November 24, 2006 at 11:05 am

I think you are all just displaying your ignorance of what the Bible says. As a Bible student for 20 years I can assure that it is very much up-to-date and relevant for our lives and we ignore it at our peril. It is not a science book and doesn't pretend to be and falls in complete harmony with science. So I think you're all speaking from ignorance to be honest. I know nothing about evolution and I don't really care: and I wouldn't presume to argue for or against it. Likewise you who obviously haven't read and studied the Bible cannot possibly form an opinion on it, nor on the abundant proof that the God of the Bible very much exists.

22. Comment #9511 by Steve on November 25, 2006 at 1:13 am

Richard (#9297), I think you are just displaying your ignorance of what every good, sound piece of evidence says. As a Biologist for 15 years I can assure that the textbooks and journals are very much up-to-date and relevant for our lives and we ignore them when we are deluded. They are science-based (i.e. evidence with controls) and fall in complete discord with supernatural religious thought. So I think you're speaking from ignorance to be honest. I know something about the bible and I do really care: and I assume the position to argue against it. Likewise you who obviously haven't read and studied the volumes of evidence-based knowledge cannot possibly form a logical conclusion, nor understand the abundant proof that the god of the bible is very much a delusion.

23. Comment #9523 by walter on November 25, 2006 at 2:28 am

reply to Richard #9297

You are a bible student of 20 years.
You claim their is abundant proof that the God of the Bible exists.
It follows them that you should be able to deluge us with such proof rather than simply claim it to be so.

24. Comment #9614 by saneatheist on November 25, 2006 at 9:11 am

Reply to Richard 45.
As you are so well read on the bible, maybe you could help me out here.

Regarding some of the specific laws of the bible and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on Sunday(Sabbath). Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
I look foreward to your advice.

Yours saneatheist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I"ll see your jesus; And raise you 2 yeti"s and a loch ness monster.

25. Comment #9677 by Paul on November 25, 2006 at 1:59 pm

What i dont understand is, if a god figure had created this whole wonderful and hugely complex universe over 14 billion years ago, why would he wait til just 2,000 years ago, choose an obscure little backwater planet, appear to primitive nomadic tribes (surprise, surprise, all in the same region), and tell them stuff which even a 12 year old basic science student nowerdays would know is just so wrong? (world created in 6 days, earth going round the sun, that sort of basic thing - which even the church now agrees is wrong). Why would he do that? It would be stupid. Surely he might have dropped a hint or two (like "hey, there's this really useful force I created called electricity ....check it out")

And what's more, all this stuff that's been put into these 2 books (I'm thinking Bible and Koran here) just happens to be exactly what the people running these primitive tribes believed about how the earth and stars and society works at the time - funny that. It just leaves an inkling of a thought that maybe these people just made it up themselves. I'm sure they thought it was divine at the time, but then we all have inspired thoughts but we don't all believe it's god given.

26. Comment #9688 by walter on November 25, 2006 at 2:48 pm

Shaunyboy-

Macroevolution is simply microevolution on an incomprehensible time scale. A thousand small changes add up to a big change and a thousand big changes amount to a HUMONGOUS change.
The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
To put this into perspective if you tried to count to 4.5 billion (assuming you did NOTHING ELSE but count and assuming one second for each number) it would take you over 140 years!!!
Their has been plenty of time for all of these small changes to accumulate.

27. Comment #9694 by Jonathan Dore on November 25, 2006 at 3:18 pm

Shaunyboy writes: "That changes occur within species is a fact. That natural selection occurs to a limited extent is a fact. The combination of random mutation and natural selection as a mechanism to explain the complexity of life on our planet (let alone the complexity of each life form!) - opinion. As I said in my previous posting - please refer me to the scientific papers that incontravertably describe and demonstrate the mechanism by which the cell organelles, the eye or the brain developed. Please, please!"

Hi Shaunyboy. Start by looking at this month's (November 2006) issue of National Geographic magazine, which has a very straightforward article by Carl Zimmer (on pages 110 to 135) where the principles behind the development of the eye and the brain through natural selection are very clearly explained. You can read it online here: www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/feature4/ -- but if you read the magazine version you'll also see the illustrations (especially those of the developing eye on pages 126-27).

28. Comment #9701 by Steve on November 25, 2006 at 3:35 pm

Shaunyboy, the evidence for evolution by natural selection as a mechanism is well documented. There are huge amounts of evidence out there, confirming evolution by natural selection occurs. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed and like any life scientist would, search for something like 'evolution natural selection' and start reading some of the 5999 papers that are retrieved on the subject. Some papers are reviews of several pieces of research, but most contain primary data - that is to say evidence from carefully controlled experiments, that may have taken the scientists years to perform.

Other searches you could try:

'natural selection flu' – plenty papers on influenza virus evolution
'natural selection drosophila' – plenty on fruit fly evolution

All quite interesting stuff.

Now now please, please, please provide any sound, testable and real evidence for the design of life by a supernatural god.

29. Comment #9712 by Jon on November 25, 2006 at 4:15 pm

Firstly – I'm one of those Christadelphians…

Secondly – thank you, sincerely for the publicity. I have a little to do with creating leaflets and advertising for Christadelphian events North of the border and I can quite honestly say that we couldn't afford this kind of publicity and if one extra person discovers that there are still 'crack-pots' like us who believe whole heartedly in the Bible and the literality of the Creation record then it's all good.

Just a few points to put forward:

Traditionally Christadelphians have encouraged their members and anyone listening not to simply accept what we say but to check it out for themselves. That goes for our lectures, leaflets, seminars, websites, etc.

So, please don't just read a few lines and write it off with a glib line – that's the easiest thing in the world to do… check it out. Having an opinion is not the same as having an informed opinion - read the Bible and check it out. It may well be true that if the Bible were dug up and discovered for the first time today that it would be dismissed, but the truth is that despite being persecuted along with it's believers since it has been in the recognisable form of a book, it remains with us and the entire world today. This in itself is a miracle.

With regards to the laws and the eating of certain animals… Of course, had God wanted to eradicate tapeworms from pigs and other vicious illnesses from the earth, as creator and sustainer, he could quite easily do that. Although, I would have thought that that kind of intervention may well have been against your belief of being free from such a spirit being?
However, I think the point that is being made by 'theevidence.org' is that God instituted laws which protected his people who, at that time, were incapable of discovering or maybe even understanding the health risks of eating such animals. In other words, they accepted God's laws on Faith… Science has simply demonstrated, many centuries later, that God's laws had a practical application as well as a spiritual one!

Finally, I understand that many of you will be interested in science, if not scientists yourselves. I am not a scientist, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but not all scientists believe in evolution. For example, Sir Isaac Newton, now I know he goes back a bit and I'm not sure how relevant his scientific findings are anymore but he was convinced by science that their was a God!
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the councel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."Sir Isaac Newton

However, not sure how relevant he is today so how about someone like Dr Wernher Von Braun? Von Braun, who for many years was Americas top space-scientist, made many public declarations of his belief in creation. He used the same argument as Newton – that creation implied a creator – and he regarded that to be as scientifically sound in the 1970's as it was in the 1670's.

And if you think I'm loopy, check out these fellas' (and ladies)…
The Creation Research Society, which numbers around 1700 people world wide, with 700 of those members holding recognised scientific postgraduate degrees. Their statement of belief, which is accepted by all members, states quite clearly that the creation record is accepted as literal. You can read more about them, including their full statement of belief on their website: http://creationresearch.org/

For more information on Christadelphians – articles, lecture times and dates, and our podcast, please visit, searchforhope.org

Judging by most of the post here you'll either find enlightenment or hours worth of hilarity… either way it must be worth a try?

30. Comment #9716 by shaunyboy on November 25, 2006 at 4:28 pm

61. Comment #9694 by Jonathan Dore on November 25, 2006 at 3:18 pm

62. Comment #9701 by Steve on November 25, 2006 at 3:35 pm
You said:
Now now please, please, please provide any sound, testable and real evidence for the design of life by a supernatural god.

But I'm not the one claiming to have the facts which prove my faith to be correct - you are!

My position is one of faith and I do not pretend that it is anything else. I look at the world around me and the universe beyond, I look at the evidence I have access to and I make my decision. I read the Bible and it makes sense to me. I don't seek to prove it to anyone other than myself!

All I am asking is for you to provide the hard facts which describe and prove the mechanism by which the eye, organelles, brain, etc developed by random mutation and natural selection. All I keep getting are the description of facts and then opinions formed from a materialistic perspective of how this or that MAY have done this or MAY have done that to form this or that structure. Conjecture in other words! There is no proof of a mechanism that is capable of forming these structures. Even if given 4.5 billion years Darwinism does not have the time or the evidence that convinces me, or many millions of others, that it is credible.

OK,so in brief on these links you gave me there is evidence which shows that primitive creatures have eyes of one sort or another and also have software which has programmed these cells in a similar way to ours. We also have evidence that viruses mutate and adapt by natural selection.

These facts do not describe the mechanism by which the eye or cell organelles developed. They do not provide evidence of the mechanism by which one species became another. In fact in the Nat. Geo. article the writer uses the example of a building going up over a period of time and how miraculous that would appear if we didn't know there were workers (aka genes) beavering away to get the job done. Well thats an illustration of intelligent design in my book. The reason the workers all do their specific job is because an intelligent mind designed the building, drew up plans and oversaw the work! If the workers just went out each day and randomly started welding bits of steel-work together and building walls here and there I don't think there would be anything of much use even after 4.5 billion years!

These are observed biological phenomena upon which opinion is formed.

I would say that they are evidence of a common design theme, although obviously we are diametrically opposed on that!

Thanks for the discussion guys - I'm going to bed now.

31. Comment #9717 by shaunyboy on November 25, 2006 at 4:32 pm

Jon

What are you doing up at this unearthly hour?

32. Comment #9732 by walter on November 25, 2006 at 6:23 pm

Shaunyboy MAY have a point about 'hard' evidence.

The prevailing theory of how eyes evolved is certainly sound. Computer simulations bear it out and we know of extant animals which still have 'primitive' eyes. But, admittedly, none of this is truly 'hard' evidence in the mathematicians sense.

But how hard, I ask, does evidence really need to be?

One must contrast the truckloads of 'circumstantial' evidence for evolution with the meager and far, far more circumstantial 'evidence' for design.

One other point here:
"But I'm not the one claiming to have the facts which prove my faith to be correct - you are!"

Premise: Evolutionists ALSO have faith.

The evolutionist mentality is often so completely foreign to creationists that the only way they can understand it is to 'project' their way of thinking upon the evolutionist. This is the reason they frame the whole evolution/creation debate in religious terms. (i.e. one faith vs. another faith)

33. Comment #9790 by shaunyboy on November 26, 2006 at 1:48 am

66. Comment #9729 by WILLIAM on November 25, 2006 at 5:54 pm

Glad you've got some strange people on your side of the debate too!

Shaun

34. Comment #9791 by shaunyboy on November 26, 2006 at 1:51 am

67. Comment #9732 by walter on November 25, 2006 at 6:23 pm
You said:
The evolutionist mentality is often so completely foreign to creationists that the only way they can understand it is to 'project' their way of thinking upon the evolutionist. This is the reason they frame the whole evolution/creation debate in religious terms. (i.e. one faith vs. another faith)


Firstly thank you for your honesty in being truly objective about the evidence.

RE your comments above, if there is no absolute proof faith is required, I'm afraid there is no way round that point.

Shaun

35. Comment #9799 by walter on November 26, 2006 at 3:23 am

reply to Shaunyboy

If you define faith as belief without ABSOLUTE proof then you are correct.

But...

most of us infidels don't consider absolute proof necessary to believe what WE believe. Most of us are willing to accept a burden of proof approximating that required by a jury. (beyond a REASONABLE doubt say)

You might be inclined to suggest that the argument from design is ALSO acceptable beyond a reasonable doubt. And in fact at one time it was. For centuries it was the 'big gun' of theology.

That is until Darwin came along.
He showed how all the complexity and diversity of life could be explained WITHOUT appealing to design. AND when the jury looks more carefully at life it find things that corroborate evolutions story a heck of a lot better than a designers. Like 'junk DNA' (vast sequences of DNA which code for nothing in particular) (What did the designer make them for?), useless organs like the human appendix (Why did the designer do this?), under developed limb bones in snakes (I was about to give you some legs but then you deceived mankind so just for that upon thy belly thou shall crawl instead!), etc. The list could go on.

To summarize, the devil (no pun intended) is in the details.


And now it's MY turn to go to bed.

36. Comment #9903 by Anonymous on November 26, 2006 at 11:26 am

"Yet, that theory of evolution is completely false..."

Can you say something like that at all?

Genetic algorithms have been used for some time now to find optimal solutions to problems (usually if the problem is too complex for other methods).

Is it meant in the sense that convergence of such algorithm is not guaranteed (strictly speaking)?
Or is it meant that theory is not applicable to genetics/biology?

I have always wanted to know this, but never had any replies from people who oppose evolution.

37. Comment #10004 by walter on November 26, 2006 at 9:29 pm

first to Vrijzinnig Man-
Couldn't have said it better!
However, considering the way voters have behaved of late, I don't think the Republicans will be throwing their weight around much in the near future.

Or at least we can hope.

and now to Shaunyboy-

"-For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator-"

I remember reading this passage on a creationist website once. The argument presented was basically that evolutionists were fascists or at least were responsible for fascism to some extent.
(The latter interpretation MAY have some truth to it but only because of an all too common misinterpretation of the theory which I might go into more if this thread continues.)

Anyway the point I'm getting at here is that I once thought that this passage more or less implicitly referred to some kind of ancient and obscure 'nature worship'. (And hence the parallels with the likes of 'social darwinism'.)

But now having read more of what preceded it's now clear to me that this is really a passage about paganism (really an attack on polytheism in general). The 'creature' was not 'mother nature' as I once thought but instead simply the form of most pagan gods. Usually a statue of an animal or person of some kind.

Up until now I had no idea just how easily the meaning of the Bible could be contorted. Wow!
No wonder this stuff has been so popular with the power hungry!

38. Comment #10047 by Jon on November 27, 2006 at 12:59 am

68. Comment #9790 by shaunyboy on November 26, 2006 at 1:48 am

To Shaunyboy

Who are you calling strange..?

39. Comment #10074 by Douglas on November 27, 2006 at 2:47 am

The proof that God is not a delusion is the existence of the State of Israel since 1948. If the vast majority of the commentators would like to find a bible and look up the prophecy of Ezekiel chapter 37. The whole chapter explains the modern miracle of God's people back in their own land, but one verse as an illustration:
Ezek 37:21
And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
(KJV)

40. Comment #10090 by Steve on November 27, 2006 at 4:10 am

Douglas. Even if I try follow your logic, Israel is not a very good advert for god. He's made a real mess of the place. I certainly wouldn't live their on safety grounds. And if the US stopped their huge subsidies, the country wouldn't last long. Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe in the same god – all god's people then – they never left, the bible was wrong.

41. Comment #10146 by Jon on November 27, 2006 at 7:26 am

81. Comment #10090 by Steve on November 27, 2006 at 4:10 am

Steve,

This would need a much more detailed reply but I fear I may get caught and get the sack... I have a few free minutes, so to partly answer your comment...

God's chosen people are Israel/the Jews (as described in Ezekiel Ch37 above, and the rest of scripture).

God made very clear and specific promises to that people.

Now, the Bible clearly states in the New Testament (and this is backed up by examples in the Old Testament), that the gentiles (Non Jews) can also be heirs to those promises if they obey God.
Those Gentiles are classed as adopted Jews - the Old Testament describes them as if they were 'home born Jews'.

How many Muslims do you suppose would be happy to be classed as a Jew? Hmm...

Sadly, many so called Christians would not be happy with that label either.

Prior to 1948, what happened in what is nowIsrael was unthinkable and should not be underestimated.

You are probably right in your estimation of the effects of the US's support for Israel, BUT it is there non the less and it is putting Israel in a dominant position in world politics.

Significantly the following is repeated 3 times throughout the book of Daniel:

'...the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.' Dan 4: 17, 25, 32

God hasn't made the mess, He's allowing mankind to make his own mess (or to respond to Him - it's all about free will) BUT in good time he will intervene.


77. Comment #9940 by Vrijzinnig Man on November 26, 2006 at 2:35 pm

'To Shaunyboy and like-minded people:

Your attempts to convince the freethinkers and atheists on this web site that they are wrong and you are right is completely futile.'

I thought we were just chatting..?
You must forgive our enthusiasm, not many folk will talk to us at all - perhaps it's because we are shrouded by the Internet and you don't have to look at us - but as long as you keep replying I imagine we'll keep responding...

It keeps us all keen ;)

42. Comment #10158 by mark on November 27, 2006 at 7:53 am

santa exists my mum told me so.
that will explain how the presents got down the chimey then....
debate over
great
you really cant argue with christians there is no point doing so either, blind faith will always be enough to justify the most infantile beliefs,
instead time and resources would be better aimed at countering the creeping influnce of the worlds major cults into all aspects society

43. Comment #10189 by Richard on November 27, 2006 at 11:30 am

Hi saneatheist,

This is what I mean when I say people who haven't studied the Bible shouldn't comment on it. You obviously have no clue as to the reason behind those laws nor how the New Testament brings out the spirit of the law and leaves the letter behind.

If you had studied the Bible properly you would have to have come to the conclusion that only God could have written it. It is so perfect, so complete, so meaningful, so miraculous in the way it is written and in its message that only a fool would say "there is no God".

44. Comment #10195 by Richard on November 27, 2006 at 11:56 am

Someone mentioned that they too had read and studied the Bible as a Baptist. Well... therein lies the problem and why Christianity has such a bad name among so-called "free thinkers" and atheists. Nominal Christianity believes in wild and wacky non-Biblical pagan ideas like the Trinity and supernatural devil etc.

But in fact the Bible is immensely logical and to believe its message is logical too. And it does not contradict science at all - in fact you can be an evolutionist, believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, reject the notion of a worldwide flood etc. and still accept the Bible as 100% true.

45. Comment #10218 by Drew on November 27, 2006 at 1:38 pm

Oh no, another of those Christadelphians! (me, that is)

I believe the Bible - the whole Bible - is the Word of God.

I've also read a great deal of scientific and evolutionary material (including "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" - see comment #9675), but still believe that the evidence for a designer is not disproved by this evidence.

I believe God created the world, and He created mankind with free will to accept or reject Him. I respect the point of view of those who disagree with me - can you respect my point of view?

46. Comment #10224 by Jon on November 27, 2006 at 1:56 pm

87. Comment #10195 by Richard on November 27, 2006 at 11:56 am

"Someone mentioned that they too had read and studied the Bible as a Baptist. Well... therein lies the problem and why Christianity has such a bad name among so-called "free thinkers" and atheists. Nominal Christianity believes in wild and wacky non-Biblical pagan ideas like the Trinity and supernatural devil etc. "

Accepted...


"But in fact the Bible is immensely logical and to believe its message is logical too. And it does not contradict science at all - in fact you can be an evolutionist, believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, reject the notion of a worldwide flood etc. and still accept the Bible as 100% true."

Can you expand on the 'evolutionist' and the rejection of 'worldwide flood'..?

Are you not limiting God to what 'we' are capable of understanding..? (or willing to accept..?)

I understand that a fine wine takes years to mature - I wonder how long Jesus kept the good people of Cana waiting?

Or is that different somehow?

Was that an analogy as well or did it happen?

The Bible should not be compromised in order to make it palletable or acceptable to man.

Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

47. Comment #10369 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 1:09 am

93. Comment #10337 by Vrijzinnig Man on November 27, 2006 at 10:07 pm

You're actually not far wrong - in terms of how you answer you're own questions...

Firstly, the inconsistencies... for every book claiming Biblical inconsistencies there is another to show there are none. But that's a very broad statement for both of us to make and doesn't really prove anything... lets deal with the specifics...

Also, I doubt that you would argue that anyone could expect to understand any wieghty science book by selecting quotes here and there out of context. That's kind of the approach you seem to take with the Bible.

As for the creation of the Sun, it would seem that God, in His way gave an aura of light. That would be consistent with Revelation which speaks of a time when the earth will be restored to it's original created state...

Rev 21: 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Who knows why things were done in that order - maybe this partly explains an earth that *could* be younger than appearances - but that *is* speculation.

Anyway, this comes back to the point that if you haven't studied the whole, or at least considered complete sections then it's difficult to see the power which is contained.

At the same time I haven't spent a life time studying science - i'm an arty type and not given to such - but there are many Christians of my denomination who have and who don't have a conflict with accepting the whole of the Bible as it is presented and still enjoy a lifelong career in science.

So what i'm saying is, this should not be reduced to a level of science versus religion - that is definitely a myth!

We are just two people discussing our beliefs. :)

I think I know what you are claiming, but it's funny that you seem to state that there is plenty of 'incomplete evidence' for your aguaments. ;)

Anyway, if you are happy to continue with debate, i'm sure we are, so it surely can't be an entire futile or wasted experience for us can it?

48. Comment #10614 by Steve on November 28, 2006 at 2:48 pm

Jon. (Comment #10146) For your reference:
The word Gentile from the Latin gentilis, can either be a translation of the Hebrew goy or of the Hebrew word nochri. In the most common modern use it refers to the former being derived from the Latin term gens (meaning "clan" or a "group of families") and it is often employed in the plural. In late Latin gentilis meant "pagan", and the term gentile has equally come to be used as a synonym for "heathen" or "pagan" (nochri).
In English translations of the Bible the word gentiles is most commonly used as a translation of the Hebrew word goyim (plural of goy); in the King James Version the first and only such use in the Torah is in the book of Genesis 10:5. Christian translators of the Bible use this word in the meaning of non-Israelite, to collectively designate the peoples and nations distinct from the Israelite people; the word is used that way over 130 times in the King James Version of the Bible. In the New Testament the word is used more specifically to indicate non-Jews.
As in the King James Bible, from the 17th century on this term was most commonly used to refer to non-Jews. However, this usage was in the context of European Christian societies with a Jewish minority. In multireligious and multiethnic societies the term is typically not seen as a synonym for "non-Jew", except in restricted contexts. Outside of Jewish circles, referring to a Christian person as a "gentile" would be unusual.
It is also rarely used to describe persons of Christian faith as opposed to the adherents of Judaism.
And I repeat, Muslims, Christians and Jews all believe in the same God. They all pretend to obey god too. Are you trying to say Muslims are not the chosen people?

49. Comment #10619 by Steve on November 28, 2006 at 3:28 pm

In response to 64. Comment #9716 by shaunyboy

Shaunyboy, you have what is known as a god of the gaps belief.

Imagine a scenario. A young person very close to you dies suddenly and very unexpectedly. This person was fit, healthy and full of life. They were found in a small dimly-lit room, lying in a pool of blood.

If I were to tell you that I believe and have faith (no doubt in my mind) that there was no foul play, that this person had a rare blood clotting disorder and bled to death– would you trust me, believe me whole heartedly that it was the truth and nothing but? I don't have an evidence, I'm not medically trained, but I know it to be true.

Would you want to see direct and circumstantial evidence that builds a logical and coherent picture of what actually happened?

How did it happen? Well the investigating officers built a working theory using the evidence available at the time. The theory was that the deceased was stabbed in the back with a sharp blade penetrating their heart. There was a clean deep wound and a knife besides the body.

I maintain my position. I know nothing untoward happened. I know it to be true. Do you still have faith in me?

As the investigation proceeds, they find fresh evidence. Fingerprints on the weapon correspond to a known psychopathic killer recently escaped from prison. Fibres at the scene contain traces of DNA that match the escapee. The room where this sad event took place was once rented by the known killer.

I maintain my position. I know nothing untoward happened. I know it to be true. Do you still have faith in me?

I explain that there are gaps in this theory: no one witnessed the event; no CCTV footage; the murderer wasn't caught and therefore could not confess. I ask the police to explain and give direct proof for, the theory of murder. The police provided a really plausible explanation, citing the strong evidence that existed. However, they couldn't convince me, there were small gaps in the evidence. I informed the police that this was not a well constructed explanation because they couldn't tell me exactly what time it happened or how the murderer entered the room without detection. Therefore my faith in the 'no foul play' explanation must be true, because I know it to be true.

Do you still have faith in me? Do you believe me?

If you don't, then you start to understand how I (and I imagine most atheists) feel about people who believe in a supernatural god.

50. Comment #10741 by Differenceoftwosquares on November 29, 2006 at 4:29 am

"You see the Bible is about WHY the world and human beings are the way they are, and it is about WHAT God is going to do about it."

This is a ridiculous assertion, the Bible explains nothing and consists of pieces of paper with bits of ink on them. The bits of ink tell us a story which reads like any other piece of ancient myth.

The only authority it can possibly claim comes from what PEOPLE say about it. God remains resolutely silent, and I for one think he does so because he doesn't exist.