151. Comment #46406 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 6:16 am

I have researched the Confession of Faith. It includes an unambiguous statement that the universe was created in 6 days. I would be interested to know if David truly believes that.

Other Comments by steve99

152. Comment #46408 by pewkatchoo on May 31, 2007 at 6:17 am

NMmC said:

David, you're a grown man with a modicum of intelligence. Why on earth do you waste what you have, as well as your time, trying to defend the indefensible and bolster that which should be left to fall into oblivion?

Because if he did then he would have to admit that his whole life up till now has been a total waste. He does not have the moral courage to face up to that!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

153. Comment #46410 by epeeist on May 31, 2007 at 6:35 am

Comment #46403 by NMcC

Well, my question to you was: why didn't you include stills of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, landslides etc. In other words, why did you leave out the vastly more convincing evidence of non-design? And, I suggested, your video was in fact nothing but dishonest propaganda.

I thought the Christian position was that we were born in a state of sin because of Adam and Eve and that this life was part of the punishment for that sin.

This being so then your catastrophes and Billy's parasitic worms might be considered as evidence for god acting out that punishment.

The lambs and sunsets would therefore be considered as propaganda designed to disguise god's true nature.

Other Comments by epeeist

154. Comment #46411 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 6:36 am

I'm afraid that the language of hatred soon leads to actions.

You didn't answer the question. Do you seriously believe that McGrath, Collins and other believers need to have bodyguards against atheists in the same way that Rushdie needed them because of religious fundamentalists?

Other Comments by steve99

155. Comment #46416 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 6:50 am

David Robertson you have repeatedly told us here that we are dangerous and a brewing cauldron of violence against believers.

Clearly this is ridiculous, because if we actually were we wouldn't wait to be told by you and you wouldn't be repeatedly telling us either (did anyone ever waste time convincing the ku klux klan or eta or whoever that they are violent and dangerous!?).

If you knew your nextdoor neighbour was very prone to violence you wouldn't knock his door to repeatedly tell him he was bound to snap pretty soon and attack half the street would you?

The way you behave here is alarming for a christian minister.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

156. Comment #46417 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 6:52 am

1. I do not mischaracterise faith. Of course there are people who believe in the way that Dawkins describes. However there are a far greater number of people who believe in the way that I described. When Dawkins uses a definition of faith which no thinking or reasonable Christian, or indeed any version of Christianity would accept, then he is being deceitful.

Versus confession that the world was created in 6 days- What the ....


Of course David is lying about rationality and faith, because he never provides any evidence or engages in any meaningful debates - he just likes to insult and call us all fundies - he really is a very sad case. If he didnt believe in 6 day creationism himself, he could more profitably put his energies into talking round the fundies. At least fundies are honest, they stick to the teaching of their book. Afterall, god, paul, jesus and peter all say genesis is literal. David never provides a case otherwise.

Other Comments by BillySands

157. Comment #46420 by SRWB on May 31, 2007 at 6:59 am

The Wee Flea said,

Already on this thread there has been one atheist who has said that violence may be necessary in order to remove religious belief. I'm afraid that the language of hatred soon leads to actions.

Are you sure that's what was said? I seem to recall that this is in reference to Sam Harris's statement, which you continue to misquote.

I believe that sex is a gift from God designed for one man and one woman within the context of marriage. I realise that to say this will invite a chorus of ridicule.

So how would you define other animal sex? Is that too a gift from God, or is it simply a way of reproducing? And do other animals get married? Clearly, the sexual act leading to reproduction does not depend upon being married, as the rampant social problem of unwed teenage mothers amply demonstrates.

But perhaps you could allow me to ask one simple question? Do you think polygamy is wrong? And why? Do you think having sex with a 14-year-old is wrong? And why?

What do either of these have to do with homosexuality? In any case, both have been adequately answered. Surely you are not suggesting that homosexuals are by definition polygamists and paedophiles as well, are you? If so, that's very Jerry Falwellian of you!

Other Comments by SRWB

158. Comment #46421 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 7:00 am

Another good point Baron, and we do know where he lives.

By the way, I think the KKK were actually formed by immigrants from David's church

Other Comments by BillySands

159. Comment #46422 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 7:03 am

Billy:

Versus confession that the world was created in 6 days- What the ....

If only it were that simple. I imagine the argument would be that 'common sense' tells us that the '6 days' were 'metaphorical'. I am not intending to put words in David's mouth - this is the kind of thinking that is commonplace. The problem is the selectivity of 'common sense': '6 days' may be metaphorical; St. Paul's support of slavery may be redundant, but anything against homosexuality has to be word-for-word true.

I get so very tired of the "bible is the word of God except for where my gut feeling says it is wrong" argument. They try and get away with it by calling their gut feeling "The Holy Spirit". At least fundamentalists have some sort of warped integrity

Other Comments by steve99

160. Comment #46424 by NMcC on May 31, 2007 at 7:05 am

epeeist

Who can honestly say what the 'Christian position' is on anything. Afterall, you can be a Christian and believe absolutely anything that takes your fancy. You can be pro-abortion or violently opposed to it and, 'as a Christian' be 100% certain that your stance is the only genuinely 'Christian' stance.: ditto death penalty, homosexuality, sex before marriage and so on ad nauseam.

In regard to Robertson's view on what you suggest, i.e. that because of 'original sin' we are living out a punishment on a cursed planet, why is he using the old "look how lovely the world is, it's a veritable garden of Eden, God must have made it" argument?

Edited addition

Speaking of design, on page 77 of Hitchens' book, he writes in regard to William Paley: 'in his book Natural Philosophy'. Should this book not be called Natural Theology? Did Paley write another book that I've never heard off?

Other Comments by NMcC

161. Comment #46428 by BaronOchs on May 31, 2007 at 7:26 am

Has David Robertson still not explained his views about homosexuality?

If he thinks we're hectoring him he should ask himself how he'd respond if he encountered someone attacking the monogamous hetoresexual marriage he thinks is a gift from god. Of course no-one, certainly no-one here would be so ridiculous. What wee flea doesn't realise is his disdain for all other lifestyles is equally ridiculous.

Call marriage a gift from God if you want then, what gives Andrew Sullivan for instance any less right to call being gay a gift from God?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

162. Comment #46430 by Philip1978 on May 31, 2007 at 7:41 am

David,

You laugh at my view of history, fine, I find the fact that you talk to an invisible "god" and have not been locked up for it laughable but each to our own. People who hear voices in their heads claiming Elvis is talking to them have been, I see at as simply swapping Elvis for your god!

I have to ask this one, I did after all make claims to there being a plethora of gods to believe in, so lets concentrate on yours, since you used the name Knox and he was a Calvanist? yes? Sorry about the Catholic thing, but hey ho you grew up in the right area for Presbyterianism, its all the same to me anyway.
Presbyterianism, hmm, being Protestant was too rubbish was it?
So are you a Four-point Calvinist? Neo-Calvinist?(Is that the Matrix version? arf arf!)Christian Reconstructionist? Lapsarianist? Hyper-Calvinist?
I heard something about Scottish Reformist, does the above apply to any of them or is that a different one too
Then I heard some reformists went off and formed unions from others like Congregationalists, Anglicans, and Methodists? Heretics?

Bloody hell the list goes on, so many reforms in Scotland, Ireland, Canada and America and each with their own wild ideas over what amounts to being the same religion!! I mean for goodness sake, how do you end up choosing the right one? Or has your god simply predetermined it and might forgive you for choosing Hyper Calvinism over the Neo one if he is feeling particularly merciful? Or did he predetermine the one you were going for and simply for a giggle is going to kick your backside into hell anyway!

You have read the bible for 25 years? Do you keep missing out on the Old Testament or you just gathering your mates to hunt the rest of us down for a good old fashioned stoning to death cos we told you your god is false?

Who are you going to go for first? My betting is on Steve99 (sorry mate, its his god who hates you, not me I promise!) cos he is gay and obviously the biggest abomination of us all. So what if the guy happens to have the same feelings men that you have for women, the man was predetermined by god to fall in love with men so your religion could persecute him!

Belgium to all of it, like you said, I don;t understand any of it and quite frankly I don't want to. How you can say you have a divine right to sleep with women but he can't sleep with another consenting adult male? Its like me saying you have to support the English Rugby team because I say they have a divine right to win the 6 Nations each year!
I know you were expecting people to have a go at you for this but I don't condone what you think about Steve99 and other gay people, he has every right to decide what he wants and good on him for it.
I'm probably being arrogant again so I will go away and leave you alone, sorry about the rant again guys, I got bored at work!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

163. Comment #46438 by pewkatchoo on May 31, 2007 at 8:15 am

Wee Flea again said:

But perhaps you could allow me to ask one simple question?

Of course, but that is not a question. So grammar is not your strong point then.

Then you continue:

Do you think polygamy is wrong? And why? Do you think having s&x with a 14-year-old is wrong? And why?

That is 4 questions not one. So maths is not your strong point then. So tell me, what did you study at school? Oh yeah, of course.

Childish I know, but he is a clown and deserves to be treated as one.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

164. Comment #46439 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 8:16 am

It became apparent at a meeting of the Glasgow brights last night (and some posts here), that there are some things they never teach you in sunday school. So, I thought I would redress the balance:

Biblicists often claim that because we all seem to share certain moral values, there must be an external provider of these values (their god) that fixes them in the hearts of man (Rom.1:19). This is an idea that CS Lewis discusses in "Mere Christianity". If this were true, then all people would be able to make the same moral judgements on a given topic. This is clearly not the case. One just has to think about the number of disagreements believers have amongst themselves (gay bishops (Think requirements for salvation) women priests (Think equality) and contraception (think HIV in Africa)) are a few examples. Christians usually respond to this by saying that people have their own agendas and are not following God (in other words everyone is wrong but me). The trouble is that both sides usually make valid biblical arguments. The real problem however is that the bible is self contradictory on so many issues, that you cannot use it as a guidebook. Here is an example of the contradictions concerning homosexual bishops: the bible says that homosexuals must be killed (Lev. 20:13), Jesus never gave any instructions to the contrary. If he did, he would be contradicting God. Compare this to Paul's statement that all things are permissible; even the ones that are not good for you (1Cor.10:23). Not one to be consistent though, Paul also orders a congregation to kick a sinner out of their church (1 Cor.5:1-2) Paul also tells us that EVERYONE is a sinner (Rom. 3:9-18) so why single one group out? Yet again, Paul contradicts himself and other Christians on Rom.1:19 by informing us that rather than having God's laws written on their hearts, people actually need to be taught right from wrong (Rom. 10:13-14 and 2:21). Therefore, if even their holy book shows itself to be contradictory and inconsistent, then the idea of a morally guiding god is not a viable hypothesis.
Morality is not just a question of what you do, but why you do it. This is a common Christian response to apparent examples of moral behaviour in other animals. I do however strongly doubt that true intention based morality is a common theme in every day life. Try this thought experiment: imagine you are out and you walk past a tramp. He is a dirty-faced abusive alcoholic. His beard is encrusted with vomit, his breath stinks, and he smells of stale urine. His penis is also hanging out. What do you do? Most likely, you walk past him. You may even feel disgust and call the police. You may however throw some money at him out of pity, but that just hurts him more, because he will buy some alcohol with it. What you would not do (purely out of love for him) is take him home and help him sort out his life. But that is what Jesus tells you to do. To do otherwise is a sin (Matt. 25:41-46). The very few (if any) who would genuinely take him home, I salute you, but how many of you would also be Christian?
Now on to the stuff they don't teach you in Sunday school. Firstly, God set up man to fail. I say this because before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they could not know that it was wrong to disobey this dictatorial and draconian god (Gen.3:5 and 22). To make matters even worse, he put the serpent in the garden to tempt these naïve people into disobeying him (Gen.3.1-6). God even make this evil creature in the first place (Gen.3:1). What a bastard! That shows as much parental responsibility as hiring a paedophile to baby-sit for you! Because of this situation, God condemns all mankind to die. What a thoroughly evil act. This is just the first of many examples of God punishing people for "sins" perpetrated by others (Ex. 11 (very disgusting slaughter of children) Is. 14-21-22 and Deut.5:9 for example). Imagine the police arresting you one night because your great grandfather was an Australian sheep rustler or a German concentration camp guard, it is just ludicrous. Most bizarrely, he even punishes people for being evil and audacious enough to be born to unmarried parents, or because they were born in the wrong place, like Moab (Deut.23:2-3). Bizarre, because he (through the birth of Jesus) is the bastard descendant of a bastard and a Moabite (Matt. 1:3-5, Gen.38, Ru. 4 and Matt. 1-18-19).
Not only has God created evil, he often uses it to harm others (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, and 1Sam. 16:33 to name a few). He even uses lies when it suits him (2Chron. 18:19-22). The bible also tells us that God hardens the hearts of those he wants to destroy, such as the Pharaoh (Ex. 14:1-31) and he does this after he has bullied the Egyptians into getting his way. It didn't seem to matter that his gripe was with an individual, because he was cruel to the whole nation. God basically took away Pharaohs' free will and lead him and others to destruction. What happened to mercy and forgiveness? If you are going to make Pharaoh do something, then why not just make him let the Israelites go free, with out all that nastiness, plagues and the unjustifiable killing of Egypt's first born? If all this was true, you have got think Pharaoh must have been incredibly thick not to let the Israelites go. The exodus probably never happened, but that doesn't change the immoral nature of the god of the bible. Remember, this is a God who for no good reason other than because he is God, prevents people from believing in him and being saved (Rom. 9:18).

The whole book of Joshua is about God ordained acts of ethnic cleansing, intolerance and genocide. Apparently God did not want his people contaminated with the practices of pagans. Again, this does not justify the extreme methods that God commanded, including infanticide. This means that if you are different, God does not want to forgive and enlighten you. In fact, he wants you and your babies dead. The contradiction with NT theology is glaringly obvious! Again, God's inability to be pleased (and inconsistency) is shown when he orders the Israelites to "righteously murder" the Midianites, including women and children (Num. 39). This very act however makes the Israelites impure and unable to approach God (Num. 31:19). In other words, God says "I am the God of righteousness, who cannot abide evil. Go and carryout this evil act that I demand or I will be angry, even although this act will make you repulsive to me."

God also doesn't have a problem with forcing people into cannibalism (Lev. 26:29, Jer. 19:9). Neither does he have a problem with kidnapping women, nor with making them gifts to be used as sex slaves (Jud. 21:11-14). In fact, the god of the bible doesn't think too much of women at the best of times. These following attitudes make me sick! A rapist must marry his victim. Forcing someone to live with their abuser is just about the worst thing you can make them do, and to rub salt into the wounds, the victim's father must be compensated (Deut. 22:28-29). Eve also gets all the blame for the original sin (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women!
So, what does he like then? Well, slavery for one, as long as the slaves are not Israelite (Lev. 25:44-46). Furthermore, he doesn't mind you beating them, as long as you don't kill them (Ex. 21:22-24). God likes slavery so much; he even sets different laws for the welfare of slaves and their Israelite masters. If an owner knocks out a slaves eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). I like Gandhi's observation (pardon the pun) that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Should the master kill the slave, the punishment is not defined (Ex. 20:21) here, but if he kills an Israelite, he too must be killed (Ex. 21:12). God also likes perfectly formed people too. Any one deformed may not approach him (Lev. 21:16-23). He must love having someone to hate, because the bible tells us that he knits people together in the womb (Ps. 139:13-15). So I guess every now and then, he uses his special magic god powers of righteous justice to decide exactly who to make deformed, just so he can hate them. The almighty loving God is also partial to accepting the occasional human sacrifice (Num. 31:40, Jud. 11:29-40) In the second example, a girl (Jephthah's daughter) was sacrificed to God because of her fathers' vows. Of course, if you question God on the subject, he denies accepting human sacrifice at all, claiming the whole idea to be abhorrent to him (Jer. 19:4-6). Nice lie your holiness! The only time God actually behaves himself, is when he is worried about how he appears to others, and not because it is the right thing to do (Ex. 32:11-14 and Num. 14:15-20). In fact, the supposed sacrifice on the cross was (as many Christians will tell you) was for his own glory.
Moral god? Don't make me laugh! I'll tell you what does make me laugh however, is the story where Elisha gets God to make some bears maul and kill 42 young boys for calling him baldy (2Kin. 2:23-24). It's a good job that they didn't call him a specky big nosed feminist and abolitionist! If they had, the loving, forgiving and slow to anger god of the bible would probably eternally curse mankind (not again!), and make us all lesbian Moabite hunchbacks. That would give him a real reason to be cruel to us. Clearly, the nature of God does not give an explanation as to where the "better" aspects of human nature come from. Modern evolutionary approaches are now, just starting to provide an explanation for the existence of morality.
More krazee kristianity here: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

Other Comments by BillySands

165. Comment #46451 by SRWB on May 31, 2007 at 9:34 am

BillySands,

A concise and entertaining tome! But do you think David the Flea won't try to rationalize his way out of all that? After all, that's NOT what HIS religion believes and teaches. It all comes down to interpretation and reading between the lines; deep down in your heart you KNOW it's really about love and all that mushy stuff, after all. We just have to ignore all that other nonsense - it's just so passé and not really what God is all about. Obviously, we non-believers have just not been paying attention, on account of our fundamentalism!

Other Comments by SRWB

166. Comment #46454 by Hip_Priest on May 31, 2007 at 9:55 am

I believe that sex is a gift from God designed for one man and one woman within the context of marriage. I realise that to say this will invite a chorus of ridicule. But perhaps you could allow me to ask one simple question? Do you think polygamy is wrong? And why? Do you think having sex with a 14-year-old is wrong? And why?

I know that the absurdity of this statement has been covered already but I think its worth doing it again because it illustrates perfectly how dangerous Wee Flea's faith really is. It is dangerous because it isolates questions of morality from our common humanity and ethical intuitions. Human suffering (and victims of paedophilia certainly do suffer) is a terrible thing – nobody here but Wee Flea needs a magic book to confirm that. To equate homosexuality with immorality is indefensible.

Wee Flea, would you marry a gay couple or support their right to raise a child? Would you welcome them into your church? Do you agree that gay people should hold positions of power in your church?

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

167. Comment #46458 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 10:08 am

SRWB

do you think David the Flea won't try to rationalize his way out of all that?

I expect to be either ignored or called a fundie with a deep hatred of christians. What I dont expect is a rational response. It is posted more for the benefit of those who don't know how evil the god of the bible actually is.

Other Comments by BillySands

168. Comment #46459 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 10:18 am

I know that the absurdity of this statement has been covered already but I think its worth doing it again because it illustrates perfectly how dangerous Wee Flea's faith really is.

I think it illustrates a lot more that. No-one with any deep understanding of theology (let alone biology and psychology) would make such a statement. I probably differ from many of you here in that I believe there are interesting theological discussions to be had. But that is not happening here. This kind of statement represents a dumbing-down of debate, and I find that sad.

Other Comments by steve99

169. Comment #46460 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 10:26 am

Steve, this is becoming a good thread for some decent debate. Mark is a nice chap, although I dont think he will be back for a while http://richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg

David, keep off it, I'm actually enjoying an intelligent debate here

Other Comments by BillySands

170. Comment #46464 by Benjamin Michael on May 31, 2007 at 11:11 am

David, forgive me not responding to everything you have said in my direction, but others have covered the field superbly and I do not want to waste space with an otiose post.

I will respond to one thing. You had said you rely on science in forming your belief that god(s) exist. My rebuttal included the notion that the staggeringly overwhelming majority of science and scientists runs contrary to this assertion. Your reply was: "You state this so confidently and almost as an article of faith, without any evidence". I state this confidently not because of faith but because it is observable. There is evidence that the overwhelming majority of science supports non existence of gods – through the observation of published scientific studies. You have either misunderstood what I was saying or have deliberately (and mischievously) obfuscated the issue by throwing the word "faith" at me for no intelligent reason. I have trust in the scientific method applied over time. But trust is not faith.

Other Comments by Benjamin Michael

171. Comment #46467 by scottishgeologist on May 31, 2007 at 11:21 am

Hey Billy that was some diatribe back there. Take my hat off to that one. By the time I got to the end of it, you could almost visualise a smoking heap of spent verbal cartridges....

Methinks the Flea will be busy with one of his lengthy responses.

I hadnt noticed that you posted a comment about the Brahan Seer (in that unbelievably long Christadelphian thread) - fascinating tale that is - I have a book by Elizabeth Mackenzie which goes into it in depth - of course a lot of it is unprovable, and one of the suggestions was that he was "made up" after the events happened.

Very interesting nonetheless. Ended up being burnt in a tar barrel at Chanonry Point wasnt he?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

172. Comment #46469 by Corylus on May 31, 2007 at 11:37 am

Billy

Thanks for that impressive precis of biblical dodginess - I have printed for future reference.

I am always impressed when people know the chapter and verse numbers: I never do, I just know that that sodding quote is in there somewhere :)

Other Comments by Corylus

173. Comment #46476 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Steve, this is becoming a good thread for some decent debate.

I agree with you. But not having been on this site that long, I wonder if this is the best place for such debate? Is that what the forums are for? Perhaps you could advise me.

What I do feel is that discussions on this thread could be edited and reposted somewhere as a rebuttal of the dumbed-down but unfortunately very common arguments that David has posted here and in his video.

Other Comments by steve99

174. Comment #46488 by reggiedixon on May 31, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Oh Fleabrain you're at it again - absolutely ruling out Father Christmas who delivers presents worldwide on a flying sleigh pulled by flying reindeers is fundamentalism ?
No its called "having a sound grip on reality" - one piece of repeatable evidence for your supernatural fairies and sky pixies could change all that but there is none and we all know it. You're just playing the usual silly games that religious apologists play.

Gravity exists - is that a fundamentalist statement?

There is nobody playing darts in a pub on the planet Pluto - is that a fundamentalist statement?

Other Comments by reggiedixon

175. Comment #46500 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Cheers scottishgeologist. It's just a little something I knocked together. I now imagine David riddled with holes, although, there cant be too much left of him. He has already been mercilessly gored on the twin horns of reason and morality.
Justdont get me started on felicity kendal and cliff richard :-)

I hadnt noticed that you posted a comment about the Brahan Seer (in that unbelievably long Christadelphian thread) - fascinating tale that is - I have a book by Elizabeth Mackenzie which goes into it in depth - of course a lot of it is unprovable, and one of the suggestions was that he was "made up" after the events happened.

Now, who does that sound like? And there are no autographs either. At least they have a proper light house on the point now. The seer was always a good warm up story for frightening freshers with supernatural tales in bothies, and of course people never think maybe it was made up afterwards
It was Kenneth Mackenzie the seer worked for. Is Elizabeth a decendant?
Corylus I find this a good site for finding verses that i cant remember http://bibletab.com/
It also gives you the original hebrew and greek

Steve I dont really visit the forums. I think there may be some on http://www.exchristian.net

Other Comments by BillySands

176. Comment #46616 by OutragedofDaylesford on May 31, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Dr Winstons critisism of science being arrogant is interesting, after all, god said "I am the one true god" he did'nt add "maybe" Such arrogance. I presume that Dr Winston will now stand up in his local Synagogue and demand that unless god softens his rhetoric in a new revelation, that he will be boycotted.

Other Comments by OutragedofDaylesford

177. Comment #46640 by Philip1978 on June 1, 2007 at 12:53 am

I remember reading a Bertrand Russell book, I think it was Why I am not a Christian, where he examines a particular story of Jesus.

Jesus discovers that there are some demons, who being naughty in His sight have possessed some poor unsuspecting men causing them to cause complete havoc near a farm or something. So big J pitches up, sends the demons off to possess a herd of pigs who then going mad with frenzy go hurl themselves off a cliff. Funnily enough, like Bertrand, I have a bit of a problem with this one. David perhaps you could help with this one as well if you feel up to it.

Now I am no vegetarian but isn't this a bit cruel on the pigs? I mean there they were happily crapping and grazing away as is the wont of pigs and then they are forcibly possessed by demons to go hurl themselves off a cliff

Couldn't big J simply yell an Almighty "Bugger ye off! and cast the demons back to hell without using the pigs? I mean now the poor chap who owned them has to find a new herd, probably was saving them up to get enough money to feed himself or even his family etc Oh but its alright, its Big J, Son of Gawd himself.

What exactly was the moral of this story, if you are possessed and in need of help make sure there is a spare cliff and some pigs nearby?

Was Jesus an anti capitalist? I mean he obviously doesn't approve of Interest Rate fluctuation or he wouldn't have kicked the crap out of the money lenders and here he is ruining the farming economy as well! Then there is the fishing and bread industry, there he is in front of 5000 people and hands out all the fish and bread to those around for FREE!I think I can recall something about him mending the fishing nets and there being one hell of a catch but I still feel he was up to something!

Can anyone help me out here on any other instances of Jesus sabotaging the economic growth of Jerusalem?

Other Comments by Philip1978

178. Comment #46641 by NMcC on June 1, 2007 at 1:05 am

Philip1978

What about his instructions to '...give no thought for the morrow' and 'lay ye up no store on earth'? He doesn't have to say any more after that!

Apropo the pigs. The story says that they ran down a steep hill before throwing themselves over a cliff into the sea. One writer I read worked out that the place where Jesus supposedly did this ridulous act was about 20 miles from the sea - so that pinky and perky would have had to run almost a marathon before graciously committing suicide just to show what a great chap Jesus was.

Other Comments by NMcC

179. Comment #46649 by The Wee Flea on June 1, 2007 at 2:32 am

If I answer the dozens of questions that have been put to me, then I'll be accused of writing a long and boring post. If I don't answer them then I will be accused of avoiding the issue. I will try and deal with some points that you will understand if I do not attempt to deal with all of them. Of course most of them are not really questions, they are actually accusations and I doubt that anyone who is asking them is really waiting for an answer.

As regards the issue of homosexuality, you asked me the question. I happen to think that you can find any scientific study to prove a point. Some people use science like some people use the Bible. They see what they want to see in it. Would any scientist be allowed to publish a study which was critical of homosexuality in today's climate? If you are interested in really discussing the subject further, rather than using it as a colony to beat me, then can I suggest that you read, Thomas Schmidt's, Straight and Narrow.

140. Comment #46358 by BillySands

Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting? What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

"Should a Homosexual be head of your church?" obviously you understand neither the Bible nor my church. We do not have a Head. But homosexuals are welcome to be members in the church and even ministers. As are heterosexuals. Providing they live in accordance with the Bible's teaching on sexuality and marriage.


142. Comment #46383 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 4:32 am

"Therefore, naturally we want an explation that does not involve God"

I think that very neatly sums up your position.

"Are you willing to give up the idea of God creating the universe if the fine tuning problem is ever solved?"

It would certainly be a considerable factor for me. Of a greater significance for me would be if you found the bones of Jesus somewhere.

"The God Delusion is not a science book.Any book that discusses evolution and the origin of the universe certainly is."

On that criteria then you would be quite happy for my book to be put in the science section of bookstores and libraries?

Yes I did make a case against the idea of religion being considered a meme.

"The consensus is that memes are an interesting idea. Science isn't about picking your favourite team."

exactly. The consensus is not that that memes are an interesting idea. What scientific peer-reviewed research has been done on this and where it is generally accepted? It is an unscientific theory that is put forward by Dawkins in order to fit in with his philosophy.

I accept fully that all my arguments fail to somebody who has already determined that God does not exist and is determined to continue to believe that. There is nothing that I can say or do which will change such a closed position.

144. Comment #46385 by Coel on May 31, 2007 at 4:47 am

thanks for giving me the instances of where you say I continually distort.

you have clearly not read the section that Dawkins writes on childhood abuse and the escape from religion.

For example his citation of the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. "We should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, that we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon."


146. Comment #46394 by scottishgeologist on May 31, 2007 at 5:37 am

Your ability to focus on minor things and your misunderstanding of the position of the Free Church, irrelevant though it is, is quite astounding. When I took my ordination vows, I made it quite clear that I did not accept the teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. I do not know of a single Free Church minister who holds to that position. Please try and deal in facts. And it would be more helpful if you stuck to facts that are actually relevant.

147. Comment #46396 by pewkatchoo on May 31, 2007 at 5:41 am

no I am not saying that the devil is responsible. Again, what you are doing is putting words into my mouth and I did not say and then arguing against them.

148. Comment #46399 by pewkatchoo on May 31, 2007 at 5:59 am
"David, why do you say you asked several physicists about the existence of the multiverse and they said that there was no empirical evidence, blah blah? You didn't ask anybody did you? I subjected your precise phraseologies to a google search and guess what I came up with? Exactly the same sort of phraseology used in several internet sites. For example:
www.libertypages.com/clark/10984.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/anthropic2-cr.htmAs I said before, Presbyterians = liars (not even very good ones). "

Once again you are attributing motives to me which are false. I did not look at any website, and yes I did speak to several physicists. The fact that I use language which is used in other places is completely irrelevant I doubt that I, or anyone else uses completely original language. Why do you insist on calling me a liar? And refuse to engage with anything of substance and I say?


150. Comment #46403 by NMcC on May 31, 2007 at 6:05 am

I'm sorry but the half a brain cell comment was a reference to what you had already written.

the only reason I did not include hurricanes and other events such as earthquakes, was simply because of space. If I go on to do other videos now will look at the nature of evil and its impact upon the world.
and yes I do believe that the nature of evil has an impact upon the argument from design.

?
151. Comment #46406 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 6:16 am
"I have researched the Confession of Faith. It includes an unambiguous statement that the universe was created in 6 days. I would be interested to know if David truly believes that. "

Yes I believe that the universe was created in six days, but I also believe that these days periods of time. And I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that the universe is billions of years old.

154. Comment #46411 by steve99 on May 31, 2007 at 6:36 am
"I'm afraid that the language of hatred soon leads to actions.You didn't answer the question. Do you seriously believe that McGrath, Collins and other believers need to have bodyguards against atheists in the same way that Rushdie needed them because of religious fundamentalists?"

Two things here. Please do not equate Christians with Islamic fundamentalists. And secondly, yes there are many believers who face severe persecution not only because of other religions but also because of atheistic fundamentalists.

157. Comment #46420 by SRWB on May 31, 2007 at 6:59 am

"The Wee Flea said,
Already on this thread there has been one atheist who has said that violence may be necessary in order to remove religious belief. I'm afraid that the language of hatred soon leads to actions.Are you sure that's what was said? I seem to recall that this is in reference to Sam Harris's statement, which you continue to misquote. "

Actually I was referring to quote number 88 by Yorker – "It is entirely possible that we might have to eradicate religious fanaticism by force, if that happens, it will serve as a good lesson for those who survive these wars, it will teach us never again to allow manipulators preaching nonsense, to poison the minds of uneducated people; a lesson we badly need and not just because of religion."

But I guess like Harris, you will say that this is quoting out of context and in actual fact it all mean something completely different!

Anyway I had better go. The rest of the posts are a waste – especially Billy's hilarioius analysis of the Bible! Billy – I missed you at Borders in Glasgow. Perhaps next time…

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

180. Comment #46650 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 2:43 am

David

Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting? What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

Another dodge of the question David. Did you or did you not say you would happily answer my question? I can only assume you are a liar. All I get is evasion and more questions from you. Now answer the questions concerning homosexuality. And explain why in your opinion my answer is simplistic - particularly because you only justify hating it because the bible says so. I gave a valid reason why something is wrong. Now please do the same with homosexuality, and refrain from the simplistic approaches you are accustomed to spouting. BTW even "normal" sex that you consider a gift from god is not without its dangers - Silly Boy!

The rest of the posts are a waste – especially Billy's hilarioius analysis of the Bible!

Chuckle chuckle. I guess you dont have a response then. My you must be warped if you think all that stuff in the bible is good. If someone attacked my invisible and immaginary friend like that, I'd want to defend him - unless of coure it cant be defended.
BTW have you seen how many of Dawkins' books are in borders - more than in the entire religion section! I never saw your ill concieved pile of circular logic and vitriol though. Saw McGrath's pamplet, but not yours - mind you, I never went into the toilets

Why do you insist on calling me a liar? And refuse to engage with anything of substance and I say?

See above! When did you ever say anything of substance?

Please give examples of atheist fundamentalists, then think about what your lot do (ahem swingpark). Need to go and fill a creationist biochemist with a mitrocondrial uncoupler now

Other Comments by BillySands

181. Comment #46651 by Philip1978 on June 1, 2007 at 2:46 am

Woo hoo! David thinks my posts are a waste! My work here is done!!

Other Comments by Philip1978

182. Comment #46652 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 2:46 am

Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting?

Pre-pubescent children are two young to offer genuine consent. What if they were? What if the earth were doughnut shaped?

What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

Then that would not be good. If you think that is the case for any "form of sexuality" how about some evidence?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

183. Comment #46654 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 2:52 am

I'm also reminded of the story where jesus refused to sell the expensive perfume to help the poor (john 12:1-8) even although this was wrong by his own admission (Matt. 25:41-46). Its not just Paul and David who contadict themselves then.

Are we to assume then, that you made a vow that the pope was the antichrist, but you didn't actually make it? Are there any psychologists reading? If so, what do you make of David?

Other Comments by BillySands

184. Comment #46660 by NMcC on June 1, 2007 at 3:20 am

The Wee Flea

Please don't feel the need to 'reply' to this as I won't be bothering with you again.

See how the seeker of truth lies for Jesus:

My original post about his video -

"It was nothing but a mixture of advertisments for your book, special pleading on behalf of your religion and yourself and an insult to the intelligence of anyone with half a brain cell."

Robertson's reply -

"Given that you are writing for people with half a brain cell I can try and appreciate your point!

My reply to his insult -

"I don't know why you begin your remarks with a gratuitous insult, nor do I want to know."

Robertson's reply to me -

"I'm sorry but the half a brain cell comment was a reference to what you had already written."

In other words, I made a reference to the fact that anyone with half a brain cell could see through the spurious claims of his propaganda video, he then says that the people on this website only have half a brain cell anyway, I then challenge him on his gratuitous insult and his reply is that he was only following my lead.

Can there be a more obvious example of a lying, Jesuitical charlatan?

"If I go on to do other videos now will look at the nature of evil and its impact upon the world."

I doubt if anyone will be holding their breath in anticipation of a second installment of your propagandist lies and distortions.

"...and yes I do believe that the nature of evil has an impact upon the argument from design."

I've heard a fair number of the lying for Jesus brigade and their spurious and specious 'arguments', I doubt very much that you can add anything of interest or square any religious circle that others have failed miserably to do.

Other Comments by NMcC

185. Comment #46661 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 3:26 am

Actually I was referring to quote number 88 by Yorker – "It is entirely possible that we might have to eradicate religious fanaticism by force, if that happens, it will serve as a good lesson for those who survive these wars, it will teach us never again to allow manipulators preaching nonsense, to poison the minds of uneducated people; a lesson we badly need and not just because of religion."

What are we doing in Afghanistan but fighting a fanatical religious group that otherwise will (and to an extent is) jeopardise any hope for that country?

The very idea however that atheists would go about attacking peaceful religious groups -like say, the free church of scotland- only seems to ahve even occurred in your warped mind.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

186. Comment #46663 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:35 am

Sorry for butting in guys- long incubations at work today

the only reason I did not include hurricanes and other events such as earthquakes, was simply because of space. If I go on to do other videos now will look at the nature of evil and its impact upon the world.
and yes I do believe that the nature of evil has an impact upon the argument from design.

Really! Are you then saying that earthquakes, volcanos and disease did not exist before man?

Yes I believe that the universe was created in six days, but I also believe that these days periods of time. And I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that the universe is billions of years old.

Can you give any evidence about the age of the earth? Your bible says it is young and flat afterall. Do you also believe that light existed before the sun and all animals were vegetarian? Justify why the bible is an "old universe" book, or are you just graping on to scientific truths even though they contradict the bible?

Dont forget to answer my questions on homosexuality first - they take poriority (I've got a bet on about your response. Lets see if I win a mars bar)

Other Comments by BillySands

187. Comment #46664 by Philip1978 on June 1, 2007 at 3:36 am

Billy, its no good you smart arse, I can't quite grasp what a mitrochondrial uncoupler does!! Is it something that is involved with the heart or respiration?

Other Comments by Philip1978

188. Comment #46666 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:39 am

Hi BaronOchs,
There is a great deal of religious hatred in the west coast of Scotland: catholics vs protestants. However, we dont see atheists going about kicking in people because of what they believe

Other Comments by BillySands

189. Comment #46667 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:42 am

Philip, It prevents cells making energy and you die. I am going to make some homosexual fruit flies to plague david - all you have to do is fiddle with their genes - ooh err missus: a gene called fruitless in particular.

All in the name of fundamental atheism!

Other Comments by BillySands

190. Comment #46668 by Hip_Priest on June 1, 2007 at 3:43 am

If you are interested in really discussing the subject further, rather than using it as a colony to beat me.

On this issue Wee Flea is always going to be mocked and ridiculed. Nobody is going to have a 'real' discussion here with David because there is no discussion to be had. He holds bigoted views. He's wise to be evasive on this issue because he knows how ridiculous it really is.

Would any scientist be allowed to publish a study which was critical of homosexuality in today's climate?.

Not only a bigot but a conspiracy theorist.

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

191. Comment #46671 by Coel on June 1, 2007 at 3:50 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

thanks for giving me the instances of where you say I continually distort.
you have clearly not read the section that Dawkins writes on childhood abuse and the escape from religion. For example his citation of the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. [snip]

So let's see, your defence of your claim that Dawkins said something is that . . . Nicholas Humphrey said it!

Hmm, can't you tell the difference between Dawkins saying something and Dawkins quoting someone else?

And you still haven't admitted that you fabricated a quote of Dawkins in your Times letter. Have you no integrity? Can you really not see the difference between Dawkins saying something, and you paraphrasing him, putting it in quote marks, and claiming he did?

Do you think that that tactic is acceptable in honest debate?

Other Comments by Coel

192. Comment #46672 by alovrin on June 1, 2007 at 3:53 am

Anyway I had better go.

Yes, you better had flea you have been utterly demolished.
But of course you are to blind to see it.

I wonder did you know in some tribal cultures some men were actually allowed to be raised as homosexual. It was considered a blessing to have such a person as a member of the family. What a contrast to the nasty alternative your brand of Xtianity offers.
Oh you can worship with us,,,
NO Thanks you little prick, as my queenly friends would say.

Other Comments by alovrin

193. Comment #46673 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 3:57 am

BillySands isn't a christian minister supposed to conduct himself with gentleness and dignity regardless of whether it will be reciprocated?

I ask "Reverend" Robertson wouldn't he be a bit embarassed or ashamed, if we distributed half the stuff he spews out here, amongst his congregation?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

194. Comment #46674 by Philip1978 on June 1, 2007 at 3:57 am

Cheers Billy, I see, so not only have you found god (mitrochondrial uncoupler, it all makes sense now!) but have now started playing god as well!!

Keep up the go(o)d work! hehehhe

Other Comments by Philip1978

195. Comment #46680 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 4:25 am

BaronOchs

BillySands isn't a christian minister supposed to conduct himself with gentleness and dignity regardless of whether it will be reciprocated?

Absolutely. Especially with doubuters. They are supposed to be corrected with gentleness. I thought I was as certain as you could be that god didn't exist when I first came across David, now I realise it is possible to be considerably more convinced - Oh well, if god exists, he will at least throw David in a pond with a millstone around his neck (matt 18:6)

I ask "Reverend" Robertson wouldn't he be a bit embarassed or ashamed, if we distributed half the stuff he spews out here, amongst his congregation?

Interesting that he said he did not encourage his congregation to join in the debate. I also linked this comment of his on his own site and he removed it - several times

Philip, Man makes god in his own image, therefore, I am God and you cant prove othervise BWWWahhahahah

Other Comments by BillySands

196. Comment #46681 by steve99 on June 1, 2007 at 4:27 am

David - you are abusing science. Of course people can post contrary views about homosexuality. But the vast majority of experts now understand that it is normal and natural.

I am not doing what you are doing, and seeing what I want from science. I am going with the consensus. Why aren't you? What justification can you have for not doing so? Are you an expert in this area?

Also, how would you know if this was or was not the case? Have you reviewed the literature?

The current scientific climate on homosexuality did not arise out of just wishful thinking. It arose out of detailed research. You are ignoring this research, and putting on your bigoted blinkers and selecting those who agree with you.

That is intellectually dishonest. It is also pointless. As you say, you can find an 'expert' to support any point of view you like. You can get an 'expert' to claim that humanity was planted on the planet by aliens and we are ruled by lizards (no, I am not kidding!)

That is why you have to go with the consensus that exists at any time. By not doing so, you have no right to claim any scientific backing for your views.

Yes I believe that the universe was created in six days, but I also believe that these days periods of time. And I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that the universe is billions of years old

If you read back on this thread you will see that I predicted this corruption of words. If the bible had meant 'period of time', it would have said that.

You need, therefore, to explain why you are so willing to 're-interpret' this, but not to re-interpret other words.

You see, I could, if I were a Christian, say:

"Yes, I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe that homosexuality meant something different thousands of years ago. And I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that homosexuality as we know it now is normal and natural."

In fact, many Christians do say exactly what I wrote above. Considering your loose approach to interpretation of your vows, and the Bible, you can't use either of them to justify disagreeing with them. You can't use scientific views to justify what you say because the consensus disagrees with you, and presumably not being an expert in psychology or biology, you are in no position to argue.

Can you see now that the only reason you have to disagree with homosexuality is a gut feeling? Exactly the same kind of gut feelings led in the past to oppression of women and support for racism.

"Therefore, naturally we want an explation that does not involve God"

I think that very neatly sums up your position.

Trust you to come back with such a predictable, mudane and useless response.

Yes, it does, and I very clearly explained why, and why the explanation that involves God is not useful for further investigation.

You need to explain why you aren't prepared to have an open mind and allow further investigation.

Please do not equate Christians with Islamic fundamentalists.

I suppose those Christians in the USA who attack abortion clinics and associated medical staff are acceptable because they are Christians and aren't fundamentalists?

And secondly, yes there are many believers who face severe persecution not only because of other religions but also because of atheistic fundamentalists.

I ask you for the third time. Do prominent believers like McGrath and Collins require bodyguards like Rushdie did? Sorry, but I think you are just making things up (or are deluded) about this. You are using wild hyperbole.

The consensus is not that that memes are an interesting idea. What scientific peer-reviewed research has been done on this and where it is generally accepted?

Nice contradiction here. If you had any idea of the consensus, you would not be asking about the research - you would know about it.

There has, of course, been peer-reviewed work and research. A search for the author names 'Blackmore' or 'Dirlam' should get you started. There has been plenty of research into the transmission of ideas and behaviour patterns way before the term 'meme' was widely used.

As for it being widely considered as interesting. That is easy to show. Have you heard of TED? It is an annual international meeting of those of significance in many areas of science, engineering and the arts. It specifically encourages talks that are of wide interest, that (as Dawkins would put it) reflect the zeitgeist. In 2005 they had a whole section labelled "Meme power". This is an idea that has spread widely (appropriately!) way beyond the original use.

It is an unscientific theory that is put forward by Dawkins in order to fit in with his philosophy.

You really don't know about this, do you? Dawkins simply coined the term. The idea is much older - in a 1904 work by Richard Semon. Your personal attack on Dawkins is unfounded.

I am disappointed that you have not replied to other arguments that I have put. If you don't reply, then we have it on record (and can quote elsewhere) that:

1) You can't use the 'common sense' argument to deal with physics.

2) You can't claim that multiverse theories can't be subject to empirical evidence.

3) You can't use the experience argument.

4) You can't use the 'Art and Beauty' argument.

5) You can't use the morality argument.

I put forward these as honest explanations and counters to what you have written and put in your video. They were not personal attacks.


Other Comments by steve99

197. Comment #46683 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 4:39 am

Yes I believe that the universe was created in six days, but I also believe that these days periods of time. And I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that the universe is billions of years old

So you think that if you expand the timescale the genesis accounts fit with science? Do you think the earth pre-existed the sun then?! And both of those pre-existed the existence of the rest of the entire universe?!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

198. Comment #46685 by steve99 on June 1, 2007 at 5:34 am

I've heard a fair number of the lying for Jesus brigade and their spurious and specious 'arguments', I doubt very much that you can add anything of interest or square any religious circle that others have failed miserably to do.

That is what I find rather sad about David's attempts to discuss these matters. It seems to be his view that he is contributing new or useful arguments, as against simply stating the same tired old rants. I can't speak about David, but this is usually a sign of either lack of of education (so that you don't realise your views aren't original) or a huge ego (believing against evidence that you have some special ability to put the case).

I posted a link earlier to a discussion between Jonathan Miller and Denys Turner. I think that that is an example of the level at which useful discussions can be had, not the prosaic, tedious level at which David pitches things.

Other Comments by steve99

199. Comment #46686 by scottishgeologist on June 1, 2007 at 5:44 am

David said:

"When I took my ordination vows, I made it quite clear that I did not accept the teaching that the Pope is the Antichrist. I do not know of a single Free Church minister who holds to that position"

OK.

On your church web site, it is clearly stated:

"The doctrinal standard of the Free Church is the Westminster Confession of Faith"

And on the web site, www.oasisedinburgh.com there is an article attributed to yourself in which you state:

"Our understanding of what the bible teaches is summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith – which all office bearers in the Church subscribe to"

http://www.oasisedinburgh.com/alpha/_vti_cnf/ChristianTraditionsTheFreeChurchofScotland.htm for the link.

" ALL OFFICE BEARERS SUBSCRIBE TO. "

A Confession of Faith which states UNEQUIVOCALLY that the Pope is the Antichrist.

But you state that you dont believe this. And neither does a single FC minster that you know.

Amazing! Claim a standard, a set of rules, and then ignore them. Cos they might have been fashionable at one time, when anti Catholic discrimination was rife. But now they are an embarassment, so just ignore the bits you dont like, BUT STILL CLAIM THE WHOLE SET OF RULES.

And you wonder why free-thinkers dont take you seriously?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

200. Comment #46687 by steve99 on June 1, 2007 at 5:51 am

Amazing! Claim a standard, a set of rules, and then ignore them.

Presumably, there is another set of rules about which of these rules you should ignore (the Pope is the Antichrist), which you can fudge (creation in 6 days) and which you absolutely must follow (marriage and sex for just a man and woman).

I would be interested to know where this other set of rules came from.

Other Comments by steve99