Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

201. Comment #46700 by stan on June 1, 2007 at 7:43 am

Hello

I have registered for this site as I would like to ask Wee Flea a question.

It has been keeping me up at night, and I know as a man of faith and certainty he can provide me with the answer I seek.

What is worse - Catholics or gays?

Other Comments by stan

202. Comment #46701 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 7:48 am

Hello stan!

I bet 50p the flea won't give you a straight answer.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

203. Comment #46704 by Philip1978 on June 1, 2007 at 8:02 am

Hi Stan,
Nice tough question for David, good start mate!

BillySands, God of Biochemistry and Gay Fruit Flies, long may his White Lab Coat shine upon us, has already bet a Mars bar on a stupid answer for his question, this is proving to be a most interesting day!

Other Comments by Philip1978

204. Comment #46707 by stan on June 1, 2007 at 8:13 am

Thankyou.

It is a stupid question, of course - or would be in normal debate.

But theology provides us with the opportunity to ask us questions such as this, in a spirit of true truth-seeking.

So what is worse? Anal sex or the Antichrist? Bum chums or Bishops? Rent boys or Timalloys?


How many angels *can* fit on the head of a pin?

Other Comments by stan

205. Comment #46710 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 8:25 am

Stan, I am actually spending the weekend with a guy called David Robertson, he his climbing his last munro. The trouble is, there is going to be a catholic there - who has a gay brother, maybe the other david robertson could tell me the best way to burn him. I thought Brahan seer style in a tar barrel on top of stob na broige - after he has carried the whisky up of course. What do you think?

Maybe I could just put some honey on his head and let my army of gay fruit flies bum him

Other Comments by BillySands

206. Comment #46714 by stan on June 1, 2007 at 8:54 am

Perhaps you could breed an army of Evangelical fruit flies to convert him.

As a Catholic, does he hate the brother for being gay? Or is he not a real Catholic?

Other Comments by stan

207. Comment #46715 by scottishgeologist on June 1, 2007 at 8:57 am

Stan, no point in asking a Scottish Presbyterian the answer to anything - they;ll just end up fighting over who has absolute truth. Like in this diagram:

http://website.lineone.net/~davghalgh/churchhistory.html

Yanks are just as bad:

http://www.pragmatism.org/american/presbyterian_churches.jpg

Now think about it, they cant ALL be right now can they?

Hah! That'll make sure you get a good nights sleep!

And Billy, Stob na Broige eh? Ah bliss. The soaring majesty of Glencoe. Love it!

Answer is obvious. Burn him in the whisky. Kill two satanic birds with one stone!

Have a good weekend!

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

208. Comment #46716 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 9:00 am

I dont know if he knows, He loves his monarch but hates god save the queen for being too proddy. In some rspects he is like wee flea who doesnt know if he thinks the poe is the antichrist or not.

Actually, I have a friend who got a lift from a wee free minister near kintail. He made the mistake of asking if he was a priest. There then followed a long rant about the catholic church being the whore of babylon

Have you tried sending your question into the sunday post?

Answer is obvious. Burn him in the whisky. Kill two satanic birds with one stone!

LOL (thats not loyal orange lodge by the way David) I better not forget my marsh mallows

Other Comments by BillySands

209. Comment #46717 by BaronOchs on June 1, 2007 at 9:01 am

wee flea will try to dodge anything you throw at him.

i.e:

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…

David Robertson you still have to explain why it is hilarious if you want us to listen to anything you say.

Look forward to your response, also why as a good protestant would you throw away a chance to talk about the good book?!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

210. Comment #46720 by stan on June 1, 2007 at 9:06 am

NO.... save the whisky!

http://website.lineone.net/~davghalgh/churchhistory.html

Think that diagram could be neater, but your point is made. A lot of people care passionately about seeking the truth, which is why I registered this afternoon seeking an answer. What *is* worse?

Other Comments by stan

211. Comment #46721 by stan on June 1, 2007 at 9:09 am

[quote]Have you tried sending your question into the sunday post?[/quote]
You know, that's not a bad idea.

Other Comments by stan

212. Comment #46803 by Russell Blackford on June 1, 2007 at 5:41 pm

I'm always a bit uneasy about references to "angels on the head of a pin". Wasn't this a pre-Cantorian thought experiment about the nature of infinity (can you have an actual infinity, as opposed to an indefinite and potentially infinite series?), rather than a theological speculation about the nature of angels? My understanding has always been that the puzzle is well-regarded by modern mathematicians.

We'd all be in trouble if, in a few hundred years' time, people took our thought experiments literally. If it's taken that we are talking literally about utility monsters, whether to push fat men onto railway tracks, hooking ourselves up to Nozickean experience machines, and so on, it might make us seem even loopier than we doubtless really are, if judged by 25th-century standards. *grin*

Sorry, folks, I realise this is a tangential point. It's just that I'm reminded by it every time I see a reference to angels on pinheads.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

213. Comment #46884 by steve99 on June 2, 2007 at 4:23 am

This has been a fascinating discussion, but I think we are going to get nowhere with Wee Flea. I suspect he will leave his YouTube presentation un-amended, even though we have thrown up more than enough counter-arguments for anyone to realise his arguments are extremely flaky. He will probably go to discussions elsewhere and proclaim how he thinks physics has abandoned 'common sense' even though in everyday life he uses things designed from quantum theory, where common sense never got started. He will be persistently inconsistent, but he just won't be worried. Even if we persuaded him to stop promoting his views in public, he would still continue believing they were right.

I think I know why, and as an ex-Catholic I should have realised this sooner. Daniel Dennett says religions evolve, and Christian religions have evolved a wonderful defence that makes many believers invunerable to reason. It is called the Holy Spirit. It allows for personal interpretations of things based on concience, as you would consider your concience inspired by God. It makes you into a mini-Pope, with your own infallible beliefs. It justfies faith, and is a problem, because it will allow the justification of anything. For example, if you believe different things from others in your Church, it is because God has a different role for you. This linking of your concience to the Divine means that you are largely immune to rational debate about your core beliefs. Others are wrong just because they just are. If scientists say otherwise, it is they that are deluded as they don't have this direct line to God. This is why such people just aren't bothered about inconsistencies in the bible, or in the vows they take. The can simply say that their God-inspired concience tells them what is right. Putting forward any number of reasoned argument will achieve nothing.

This may sound cynical, but I honestly believe this is the case, and it is why we will probably get nowhere in terms of changing the beliefs of Wee Free and others like him.

Other Comments by steve99

214. Comment #46905 by NMcC on June 2, 2007 at 6:22 am

Steve99

I agree with you. There's little point in pretending that people like Wee Flea are ever going to be influenced by facts and logic.

The thing that finally convinced me of this is the ease with which otherwise intelligent people have accepted the view that the 'creation' period of the bible really involves each 'day' lasting longer than the normal 24 hours. Whichever way you look at it, given that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, this position, (which is entirely ad hoc, of course) automatically means that believers have to accept that each 'day' lasted for almost 2 billion years.

The likes of Wee Flea don't bat an eye at this preposterous idea. Despite the devastating consequences for their bible based belief, they have simply taken it in their stride, even to the extent of nonchantly convincing themselves that this was the accepted view of believers all along.

When you consider, for example, the effect of the 'day-age' theory is to make the Sabbath almost 2 billion years long, you can get a flavour of the mental gymnastics that people like Wee Flea engage in every day. But they're more than willing to do it, no matter how foolish their position. I suspect that if Jesus Christ himself came back and told Wee Flea that his religion was a lot of bollocks, he'd still lead exactly the same life and hold exactly the same views.

All we can do, I think, is to try and 'raise consciousness' as Dawkins suggests. This is certainly possible, and I think we should concentrate on preventing, were possible, religious freaks having a free run at indoctrinating kids.

There are any number of ways of doing this and small victories can be gained all the time.

A recent victory involving myself, for example, will illustrate this. Along with all the other pupils, my young son is given a letter to bring home with him from the headmaster of his school every day. This letter contains various information regarding school activities etc. Up until 2 years ago, these letters also used to contain advertisements for local church activities and, outrageously, for religious groups. The headmaster, as a Christian, wasn't remiss in putting in a frequent admonishment that the parents make sure their kids are regular God worshippers. He didn't say it in those words, of course, but that's certainly what he meant.

Anyway, I contacted the headmaster and explained to him that I found his actions to be offensive, that he was exceeding his remit and that he was not to use my son as a mule to carry his religious propaganda again. All said in the most polite way, naturally.

The end result is that for the last two years there hasn't been a SINGLE mention of religion, in any shape or form, in the headmaster's daily letter. Further, at Christmas time, my son's teacher even had the common courtesy of asking me beforehand if I minded my son taking the role of a shepherd in the school nativity play.

I think this is the best way forward, rather than interminable engagements with bigoted idiots like Wee Flea.

Other Comments by NMcC

215. Comment #46912 by steve99 on June 2, 2007 at 7:16 am

Your post gives cause for optimism.

I think this is the best way forward, rather than interminable engagements with bigoted idiots like Wee Flea.

Well, I think that some engagement serves some purposes. I have selfish reasons for doing this. Firstly, it allows me to test and refine my own arguments, and secondly, I am deeply fascinated by the psychology of belief and delusion. Engagement allows me to study real-life examples of this (I don't tend to encounter Wee Free's style of belief).

I also think there can be another use in engagement, no matter how futile it may be in converting those who you are engaging with. It can expose the flaws in their reasoning to others, and can provide a reference to others who wish to challenge belief.

Other Comments by steve99

216. Comment #47172 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 10:07 am

surely the sabbath was only one day, and the rest were billions- its obvious if you drink a mixture of meths and paintstripper.
I agree and also think these fundies do serve a purpose and allow others to see the flaws in theistic thinking. A few people have said elsewhere that wee flea has helped them overcome their faith, so there is hope. Funny thing is, that doesn't stop him comming back. If you electrocute a snail often enough, it at least learns to stay in its shell.
David, How many people have left your church because of the atheists who visited your site before you changed it?
And why is homosexuality worth the death sentence?

The can simply say that their God-inspired concience tells them what is right.

Which is exactly why the world would be safer without religion.

Stan type blockquote between the <> symbols

Other Comments by BillySands

217. Comment #47290 by The Wee Flea on June 4, 2007 at 2:02 am

Okay guys,

I can see that the standard of debate has dropped considerably. This will be my last post on this thread. I will try to respond to some of the more sensible posts. It won't take long!

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

That's strange! Only this week I was called a Bible bashing bastard! And one of the windows of my church was put in. I have no doubt whatsoever that even though there are nice atheists, those who discuss philosophically, yet the language of hatred is such, that other human beings will use it as an excuse for persecution.

190. Comment #46668 by Hip_Priest on June 1, 2007 at 3:43 am
" Nobody is going to have a 'real' discussion here with David because there is no discussion to be had. "

That just about says it all!


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

"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? "

Actually, most of my congregation know about it. In fact I would encourage them to have a look at this website. It would help them to see that it is not only religious people who are fundamentalist. It would also help them to see the kind of foolishness that we are up against.

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."

Steve, I've had a look at a significant amount of the literature on the subject. It is not the case that the majority of studies indicate that homosexuality is normal and natural. The most that can be said is that homosexuality occurs in different species.

"The current scientific climate on homosexuality did not arise out of just wishful thinking."
No, the current scientific climate on homosexuality arose out of the opinion expressed above that there is no debate to be had. People started off with a belief, and then look for science to justify that belief. Any scientist who would wish to argue otherwise would immediately be told that he was a bigot and that there is no discussion to be had. It is little wonder that there will soon be a consensus.

"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."

Anyone with any awareness of Hebrew would realise that the Hebrew word for day is one that can indicate a significant period of time. Even those who are biblical literalists cannot argue that the seven days of Genesis chapter 1 electoral 24-hour solar day is, given that the sun was not created until the fourth day!

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

"Can you see now that the only reason you have to disagree with homosexuality is a gut feeling?"

now, there are at least two other reasons. The first is biblical teaching, which I know you do not accept. And the second is basic biology.
.
"You need to explain why you aren't prepared to have an open mind and allow further investigation."

You have to remember that it is not me who states 'there is no discussion to be had'. How's that for an open mind!
I am always happy to allow further investigation. What makes you suggest otherwise?
.
"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?"

Just how many Christians in the US of A. attack abortion clinics? You use those at the very extreme edges and then imply that they are mainstream or typical of the whole movement. Facts and figures would be appreciated rather than prejudices.

"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."

It's such a stupid question. Does Dawkins require a bodyguard? And why do you cite McGrath and Collins as prominent believers? In fact many Christians do require bodyguards - the Pope, Billy Graham and Ian Paisley! What does that prove? Besides which your equation of persecution solely with direct physical violence is somewhat simplistic. There are many ways to skin a cat!

I find it interesting that you keep telling me what arguments I can use. This is typical of the atheist position. You ask us for proof and then you define the boundaries in such a way that no proof as possible.


201. Comment #46700 by stan on June 1, 2007 at 7:43 am
"HelloI have registered for this site as I would like to ask Wee Flea a question.
It has been keeping me up at night, and I know as a man of faith and certainty he can provide me with the answer I seek.
What is worse - Catholics or gays?"

Stan, if that is what keeps you up then can I suggest that you get a good therapist or a life! This is the kind of 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question. It is an accusation rather than a question. The person who asks it obviously thinks they are being incredibly witty and clever. I'm afraid that I do not put people into categories and labels in the way that you seem to. The answer to your question is very simple. All human beings are the same. We are all equally made in the image of God, and that image has been perverted in all of us. All of us, without exception, need the redemption and the salvation that is offered by Jesus Christ. Irrespective of religion, sexuality or any other label that people choose to place upon us. I hope that helps you sleep better.


214. Comment #46905 by NMcC on June 2, 2007 at 6:22 am
Steve99

"I agree with you. There's little point in pretending that people like Wee Flea are ever going to be influenced by facts and logic."

Of course, because if he was then he would become just like us! This of course is a classic example of open-minded tolerant thinking and not the sort of religious fundamentalism that we are complaining about!


"When you consider, for example, the effect of the 'day-age' theory is to make the Sabbath almost 2 billion years long, you can get a flavour of the mental gymnastics that people like Wee Flea engage in every day."

Brilliant thinking! Was there ever an eighth day?

" But they're more than willing to do it, no matter how foolish their position. I suspect that if Jesus Christ himself came back and told Wee Flea that his religion was a lot of bollocks, he'd still lead exactly the same life and hold exactly the same views."

Of course. I realise that it is comforting for you to hold these beliefs about me and about other people, but if you really are the open-minded, tolerant and rational people that you claim to be, then perhaps you should stop projecting your thought patterns and your philosophies upon everyone else.

I like the example of your campaign against your local headmaster. Yes, this is the route that you are going. You will not engage in debate with people you just write letters claiming that you have been offended. In your campaign to obliterate religion you will continue to work in this fashion. It has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with intolerance and fundamentalist atheism.

Of course all my remarks above will instantly be dismissed by most of you because anyone who does not agree with you, is clearly a self-deluded bigoted idiot whose brain has been so infected by the religion virus that they cannot possibly conceive the truth.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

218. Comment #47294 by Coel on June 4, 2007 at 2:26 am

Of course all my remarks above will instantly be dismissed by most of you because anyone who does not agree with you, is clearly a self-deluded bigoted idiot whose brain has been so infected by the religion virus that they cannot possibly conceive the truth.

Well, that last phrase does sum you up quite well. However it is not because you "do not agree" with us that we conclude that about you, it is because your book and your posts contain nothing but distortions, misrepresentations, sneers and abuse; that sums up your book from its demonstrably-false first paragraph to its end.

Every time I have pointed out where you misrepresent Dawkins you have failed to provide an adequate response -- at one point your evidence that Dawkins had said something was . . . that Nicholas Humphries had said it!

I repeat my challenge: please point to ONE place in you book where your report Dawkins's views that is NOT a distortion. Can you do that?

And are you STILL unwilling to admit that you fabricated that Dawkins quote in your Times letter? Have you NO integrity?

Can I ask you a straight question? If you thought that by distorting the truth a little, by telling a lie, you could bring someone to the Christian faith, would you consider it acceptable and moral to tell that lie?

Other Comments by Coel

219. Comment #47296 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:28 am

I can see that the standard of debate has dropped considerably.

Well, you have returned.

now, there are at least two other reasons. The first is biblical teaching, which I know you do not accept. And the second is basic biology.

You still have to address why it is wrong. The biblical teaching part of your answer proves my point that the bible makes people act in retarded ways, because as far aas you are concerned, no justification is required - god says it is wrong - therefore...... However, there is nothing wrong with a lovong homosexual relationship. Your second answer is incredibly obtuse. So, if something goes against biology, it is wrong? What about congenitally deformed people? Girls reach puberty around 12 - that means they can have babies david. Does that mean you have no problem with uncle nobby the 62 year old paedo wanting to do them? What about selfishness that biological - oh wait a minute..... HOMOSEXUALITY HAS A BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

I ask you once again, what is inherently evil about it.

BTW we didn't actually burn the jungle jim* We just pused him over the edge - he is still alive badly hurt though - perhaps the crows and buzzards have finished him off by now though

*jungle jim = tim = catholic = whore of babylon (I thought Stan summed your lot up nicely with his question)

Other Comments by BillySands

220. Comment #47302 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2007 at 3:15 am

David, there you go again using the "F" word, I told you to go look it up but you insist on using it in the wrong context. You called me a liar and said you have never used it to describe people who question your religion, I even provided previous quotes and Billy left that fabulous link to the Troll section! Here you are telling your congregation that we are a bunch of Fundamentalists and since we are the ones questioning your religion I get the feeling you think of Atheists as fundies, make your mind up!

"Actually, most of my congregation know about it. In fact I would encourage them to have a look at this website. It would help them to see that it is not only religious people who are fundamentalist. It would also help them to see the kind of foolishness that we are up against."

See, what am I supposed to think of that?

Plus you never told me what type of Calvinist you are, would still like to know

Oh yes, the Constantine thing, I acknowledge the bible was around before he and his mates made a load more stuff up, I just wanted to know what you thought of their actions. I look at it as a bunch of men making more rules for a man made religion

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

221. Comment #47306 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 3:36 am

Philip

Oh yes, the Constantine thing, I acknowledge the bible was around before he and his mates made a load more stuff up, I just wanted to know what you thought of their actions. I look at it as a bunch of men making more rules for a man made religion

That would require intelligent debate. He does not do that. I got him a couple of times on messianic prophecies and the census of quirinius making matthew and Luke incompatible. The funny thing is he thought he had me (he claims to be a historian, but hadn't done any proper reseach) I blasted him out the water, and it degraded to me being called a fundie again.

If we see him pop up elsewhere, we should bug him with the same unanswered questions and post links to them for others to enjoy

Other Comments by BillySands

222. Comment #47309 by The Wee Flea on June 4, 2007 at 3:53 am

218. Comment #47294 by Coel on June 4, 2007 at 2:26 am

"I repeat my challenge: please point to ONE place in you book where your report Dawkins's views that is NOT a distortion. Can you do that?"

p57. (on Dawkins arguments that someone must have designed the Designer). There are of course dozens of others but you only asked for one.


220. Comment #47302 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2007 at 3:15 am

"Oh yes, the Constantine thing, I acknowledge the bible was around before he and his mates made a load more stuff up,"

Could you let us know what Constantine and his mates 'made up'. That should be fun. Oh, just a small favour...evidence please...

And Billy, you are a scream! You blew me out of the water on the Luke Census! You're having a laugh...sweet dreams

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

223. Comment #47310 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2007 at 3:54 am

I think we should all have a competition to see how many times we can get David to call us a) Fundamentalist b) Distorting his lies, I mean, words (See there I go again, its the rascal in me!)
c) him deeming your questions to be not worthy of Him answering them!

Bonus points to be given for getting swear words out of him!

Other Comments by Philip1978

224. Comment #47311 by Hip_Priest on June 4, 2007 at 3:58 am

Man, that was quite a rant. David sure doesn't want to drop his discriminatory views on homosexuality. He's framed the discussion in such a ridiculous way:

The fundamentalist athiest scientific elite is conspiring against christians by not publishing studies that show homosexuality is immoral.

What?! Presumably it is his right to discriminate and spread bigotry that we're discriminating against.

There is no evidence that a gay lifestyle/marriage/family is somehow morally wrong. There is however lots of evidence that repressing people's sexuality by spreading these views regardless is psychologically damaging for the people involved.(Hey, just look at Ted Haggart!)

I hope members of Wee Flea's Church don't take his bigotry serious even if they don't see through his 10 arguments for christianity.

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

225. Comment #47314 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 4:12 am

And Billy, you are a scream! You blew me out of the water on the Luke Census! You're having a laugh...sweet dreams

read it and weep David

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page11#comments comment 254

Billy – Keep them coming. You are really getting a wee bit desperate. Yet another couple of verse quoted out of context. If you read the rest of the passage you will find that Jehiachin 'reigned' three months before he was taken from the throne and sent into exile – thus fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremiah. Try not to be so pedantic! By the way Jesus was born proabbly in 4 BC - there is no problem with the census. And please do not just diss Willaim Ramsay because you do not like his evidence - he was after all a professor of archaeology at Oxford and Cambridge.

Daivd, you really are going to need to learn to think for yourself. What does Ramsey's position have to do with anything. I have met nobel laureates who are batty! Your arguement seems be be that Ramsay was an oxford professor, so he must be right (apply that to dawkins and you are on the right track though). Lets look at his evidence

The Lapis Tiburtinus
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
...KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF...
AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE...
FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS...
FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION...
OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA...
AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Please point out the name of quirinius and a date. Do your homework (out of interest, what class was your degree in history?)

Judea also did not come under roman rule until 6CE, so there could not have been a census before then. If jesus was born in the time of herod c. 4BCE, then luke is wrong. If he was born after 6CE, then matthew is wrong, and we can also discard the visit of the magi and the slaughter of the innocents as a historical fact. The bible is in trouble and you are deluding yourself.

Concerning jehoaikim, did god say or did he not say that he will have no sucessors? And is his son's three month reign a succession or not? The bible is again wrong. Notice your poor way of thinking here. The bible contradicts itself, so we should not take it literally. This shows the illogical presuppositions of your thinking. Maybe we shouldn't take the resurrection so literally then? where do you stop? Feel free to resolve the virgin birth prophecy anytime you fancy. After having read it in context, the only thing that stops me laughing in the face of anyone who quotes that as a prophecy is the fact that I was deluded once myself.

Your response comment 530

Another piece of brilliance! Not only for its literary style and spelling. My argument is that when faced with a choice between an amateur historian with a hatred for the bible and an agenda to 'prove', and a professional archaeologist at two of the top universities in the world, my inclination is to go with the expert. And yes – it is because Dawkins is a professor at Oxford that I take him seriously, and although I know nothing about evolution I accept that the majority of qualified scientists think it is accurate and so that does make it more likely for me.
But I do think your quote above illustrates how pointless it is arguing history with you. You are like the example Gould gives of the 'mouse from Michigan'. Whenever an evolutionist is giving a talk some self styled expert influenced by AIG or whatever will shout out 'I know a mouse in Michigan' and then proceed to claim that this 'evidence' disproves evolution. You are the atheist equivalent – in between torrents of illiterate abuse you shout out 'what about Quinquirius'. Despite this being answered (and yes the census probably was in 4 BC and Q was a governor then) you then go off on another rant. Because you fail to recognize two things – firstly no matter what is said you are going to believe that the Bible is historically wrong. I realize that this fulfills a deep psychological need for you but I'm afraid that such fundamentalism doesn't really help me or any kind of rational discussion. And secondly you seem to think that if you can demonstrate that the Bible got some of its historical facts wrong then it disproves the whole thing. I'm not sure how that works. But here is a challenge for you – prove that an historical event described as such in the Bible did not happen. That would certainly undermine the claim to historical infallibility. I have been an historian for 25 years and have studied the Bible for that period of time. I have not come across any such evidence. Please note that I am not saying I can prove that everything the Bible says happened did. However you are claiming that we should not believe the Bible because it has demonstrable historical falsehoods in it. It is therefore up to you to demonstrate those demonstrable falsehoods. So far all you have demonstrated is your irrational hatred of anything to do with the Bible. But please feel free to provide evidence.

Nothing like a piece of reasoned debate eh? a bit like your response

As usual, when seriously challenged, you resort to abuse. You never did address the otherthings, and I also challenged you on the existance of Abraham and whether the siege of sennacherib in 701 BCE happened the way it described in the bible or not. Both times I presented evidence. You even said that you could not take take the opinion of someone who suggested Abraham did not exist seriously - yet you had no evidence, and I did.

What a bout Micah 5:2 or the virgin birth? Am I going to have to show people you getting your bottom spanked there too?


Anyway, Why is homosexuality wrong, you have still to say why. If something is so bad, you should be able to say why, or ist it as we suspect, because god says so? Can you see that is a dangerous way of thinking? - probably not

Other Comments by BillySands

226. Comment #47315 by Philip1978 on June 4, 2007 at 4:18 am

Ok David, give me a bit of time as I have a bit of book hunting to do, I don't want you to think I am trawling atheist websites or such the like, though I will do some trawling on the internet too. I remember reading about this when I lived with my folks but lost the books and cant remember who wrote them.

Nonetheless before I even venture forth on this subject I want a few things from you, do you actually acknowledge they got together in 325 AD to discuss religious issues and the bible? Did they or did they not discuss religious events such as the Easter Controversy?

Other Comments by Philip1978

227. Comment #47322 by Quetzalcoatl on June 4, 2007 at 4:55 am

Hello.... butting in on yet another debate.....

Wee Flea: two questions.

1) Do you believe homosexuality is unnatural and/or immoral?

2) If so, why?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

228. Comment #47325 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 5:10 am

Good to see you again Quetz. I feel like we are torturing wee flea here, but it is for the greater good. I see he has been giving it conspiracy theories in todays herald http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1444259.0.0.php

Other Comments by BillySands

229. Comment #47326 by windweaver on June 4, 2007 at 5:12 am

Billy,
check out this link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

It'll give you even more ammo to argue against David with (not that you need it!)

Other Comments by windweaver

230. Comment #47330 by windweaver on June 4, 2007 at 5:22 am

David, here's some bedtime reading for you:

Contradictions in the Bible

Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but
a sword. - Matthew 10:28

... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
- Matthew 26:52

***

For wrath killeth the foolish man... - Job 5:2

... let not the sun go down on your wrath. - Ephesians 4:26

***

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven. - John 3:13

... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. - 2 Kings 2:11

***

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. - John 5:31

I am one that bear witness of myself... - John 8:18

[Jesus Christ was the speaker in both of these quotes]

***

A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children...
- Proverbs 13:22

Sell that ye have and give alms... - Luke 12:33

***

Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches shall be in
his house... - Psalms 112:1-3

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of God. - Matthew 19:24

***

I and my father are one. - John 10:30

... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. - John 14:28

[Jesus Christ was the speaker in both of these quotes]

***

Thou shalt not kill - Exodus 20:13

Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side...
and slay every man his brother... - Exodus 32:27

***

Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. - Exodus 20:8

The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with:
it is iniquity. - Isaih 3:22

***

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything
that is in heaven... earth... [or] water. - Leviticus 26:11

And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make
them. - Exodus 25:18

***

For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works. - Ephesians 2:8-9

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
- James 2:24

***

God is not a man, that he should lie: neither the son of man, that he
should repent. - Numbers 23:19

And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
- Exodus 32:14

***

... the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and come forth... - John 5:28-29

As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the
grave shall come up no more. - Job 7:9

***

... thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for
stripe. - Exodus 21:23-25

... resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also. - Matthew 5:39

***

Honor thy father and mother. - Exodus 20:12

If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and
children, and bretheren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple. - Luke 14:26

***

Lay not up for yourself treasures upon the earth... - Matthew 6:19

In the house of the righteous is much treasure... - Proverbs 15:6

***

I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. - Genesis 32:30

No man hath seen God at any time. - John 1:18

***

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. - Ezekiel 18:20

... I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
- Exodus 20:5

***

Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth
understanding. - Proverbs 3:13

For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge
increaseth sorrow. - Ecclesiastes 1:18

***

The Lord is good to all. - Psalm 145:6

I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

***

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

[Jesus said] Ye fools and blind. - Matthew 23:17

***

For all have sinned. - Romans 3:23

There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and
upright. - Job 1:1

***

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to regin. - 2 Kings 8:26

Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Chronicles 22:2

***

If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an oath... he shall do according
to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. - Numbers 30:2

But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by earth.
- Matthew 5:34-35

***

... the earth abideth forever. - Ecclesiastes 1:4

... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works
that are therein shall be burned up. - 2 Peter 3:10

***

... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.
- Jeremiah 3:12

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

***

... God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
- James 1:13

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.
- Genesis 22:1

***

And God saw everything that he made, and behold it was very good.
- Genesis 1:31

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him
at his heart - Genesis 6:6

***

For now have I chosen and sanctified this house that my name be there
forever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually.
- II Corinthians 7:16

Howbeit the most high dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
- Acts 7:48

***

[God dwells] in the light which no man can approach unto. - I Timothy 6:16

The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.
- I Kings 8:12

***

And the Lord called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he
said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid. - Genesis 3:9,10

Ye hath neither heard his voice, at any time, nor seen his shape.
- John 5:37

***

Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of
Israel. And they saw the God of Israel... They saw God, and did eat and
drink. - Exodus 24: 9-11

Whom no man hath seen nor can see. - I Timothy 6:16

***

With God all things are possible. - Matthew 29:26

And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the
mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because
they had chariots of iron. - Judges 1:19

***

God is not the author of confusion. - I Corinthians 24:33

Out of the mouth of the most high proceedeth not evil and good?
- Lamantations 3:38

***

Those that seek me early shall find me. - Proverbs 8:17

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me
early, but shall not find me. - Proverbs 1:28

***

On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of attonement;
it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls
and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. - Leviticus 23:27

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor comanded them in the day that I
brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offering or
sacrifices. - Jerimiah 7:22

***

And the priest shall burn all on the altar to be a burnt sacrifice, an
offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord. - Leviticus 1:9

Your burnt offering are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.
- Jerimiah 7:20

***

God is not a man, that he should lie - Numbers 23:19

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have
deceived that prophet. - Ezekial 24:9

***

There is none other God but one. - I Corinthians 8:4

And God said, Let us make man in our image. - Genesis 1:26

***

When ye go, ye shall not go empty; but every woman shall borrow of her
neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver and
jewels of gold, and rainment; and ye shall put them on your sons and upon
your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. - Exodus 3:21,22

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, nether rob him. - Leviticus 19:13

***

At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. - Genesis 4:5,6

And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
- Genesis 4:15

***

Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do
they spin... if God so clothe the grass of the field... shall he not much
more clothe you? Therefore, take no thought, saying what shall we eat? or
what shall we drink? or where withal shall we be clothed?... Take,
therefore, no thought for the morrow. - Matthew 6:28, 30-34

But if any provideth not for his own, especially for those of his own
house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
- I Timothy 5:8

***

Be ye angry and sin not. - Ephesians 4:26

Be not hasty in they spirit to be angry; for anger resideth in the bosom of
fools. - Ecclesiastes 7:9

***

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.
- Matthew 5:16

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.
- Matthew 6:1

***

And Solomon stood before the alter of the Lord, in the presence of all the
congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven...
- I Kings 7:22

When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love
to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets, that
they may be seen of men... - Matthew 6:5

***

And no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a Nararite unto
God from the womb. - Judges 8:5

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long hair, it is
a shame unto him? - I Corinthians 6:14

***

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. - Exodus 20:8

One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. - Romans 14:5

***

For in the six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the
Sabbath day and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:11

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the
Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a
stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the
Sabbath day. - Deuteronomy 5:15

***

There is nothing unclean of itself. - Romans 14:14

Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or of them
that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the hare, and the coney; for
they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof, therefore they are unclean unto
you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud,
it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their
dead carcass. - Deuteronomy 14:7,8

***
Cursed is he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
daughter of his mother. - Deuteronomy 27:22

And Abraham said... She is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but
not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. - Genesis 20:11,12

***

If bretheren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the
wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's
brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife.
- Deuteronomy 25:5

If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing... they
shall be childless. - Leviticus 20:21

***

He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.
- Mark 3:29

And by him that believe are justified from all things. - Acts 13:39

***

[John the Baptist] is Elias which was for to come. - Matthew 11:14

And they asked him, what then? Art thou [John the Baptist] Elias? And he
saith, I am not. - John 1:21

***

Now, after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching
the gospel of the kingdom of God. - Mark 1:14

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea...
and John was also baptising Enon... for John was not yet cast into prison.
- John 3:22-24

***

And it was in the third hour, and they crucified him. - Mark 25:3-4

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour; and
he saith unto the Jews, behold your king... Shall I crucify your king?
- John 19:14-15

***

They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall. - Matthew 27:34

And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh. - Mark 15:23

[Jesus was the thirsty chap in both verses.]

***

And the men which journyed with [Paul] stood speechless, hearing a voice,
but seeing no man. - Acts 9:7

And they that were with me [Paul] saw indeed the light and were afraid; but
they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. - Acts 22:9

***

Abraham had two sons; one by a bonds-maid, the other by a free woman.
- Galtians 4:22

By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac... his only begotten
son. - Hebrews 11:17

***

Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her
death. - II Samuel 6:23

The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul. - II Samuel 21:8

***

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David
against them to say, Go, number Israel. - II Samuel 24:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
- I Chronicles 21:1

***

All power is given unto [Jesus] in heaven and in earth. - Matthew 28:18

And [Jesus] could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a
few sick folk and healed them. - Mark 6:5

***

There shall no evil happen to the just. - Proverbs 12:21

Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he
receiveth. - Hebrews 12:6

Other Comments by windweaver

231. Comment #47331 by Quetzalcoatl on June 4, 2007 at 5:24 am

Windweaver- checked the link. A monstrous conspiracy indeed. Perhaps someone should point out that abortion has been debated, many times, and that is why we have it today. The cardinal WAS standing up for his faith. It's just a shame that his faith advocates the things it does. He seems to be a man of principle, even if they are somewhat unreasonable to many.

Wee Flea- you mentioned the need for a debate on abortion. Perhaps you'd like to check the following link and give your opinion.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/31/22921/8574

(Link taken from the Pharyngula site).

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

232. Comment #47332 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 5:32 am

Cheers Windweaver,
Here is another good link http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

Obviously david wont like it because it is not written by someone who agrees with him

Other Comments by BillySands

233. Comment #47334 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 5:32 am

David Robertson:

"The intelligent discussion you call for will only happen when the assumptions of our liberal elite are allowed to be challenged."

..huh?
Don't tell me, naturalistic presuppositions? Secular humanism as doctrine? Progressive liberalism as dogma? I really hope not, David. But if so, challenge them with what? You've defined the discussion that needs to take place as "intelligent", but I honestly have yet to see anything in your lil' bag o' discourse besides assertions and appeals to scripture. It is on the same such shaky scaffolding of reason that the status of unborn children is approached by the faithful.

It's not a good thing that modernity is a source of stress to the faithful, and for that reason we should respect their concerns and include them in our civil discourse. But at the same time it must be repeatedly considered that their concerns are founded on false certainties about death, and their influence on these matters should be as marginalised as, say, a 9/11 "Truth" proponent on a committee discussing the handling of WTC memorials. (I just didn't want to reuse Holocaust denial as an example :P)

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

234. Comment #47345 by newatheist on June 4, 2007 at 6:36 am

David, please do me the courtesy of NOT replying.

"All human beings are the same. We are all equally made in the image of God, and that image has been perverted in all of us. All of us, without exception, need the redemption and the salvation that is offered by Jesus Christ. Irrespective of religion, sexuality or any other label that people choose to place upon us."

David likens the question he was "answering" (about gays and catholics)to "When did you stop beating your wife?" His answer is like "Never, I beat her all the time but that's okay, I beat everybody."

Well anyway, he seems to say it's okay to call gays and catholics (equally?) evil because, well, we all are, including him. In fact his answer is probably more like "gays and catholics are both bad, but you're bad, and I'm bad too. So, I need to stop swearing, now the gays and catholics can seek redemption."

The sad thing is David obviously thinks you can "repent" your homosexuality, turn to God and HEY PRESTO! No more sinful, wicked, man love!

Boy, that idea sure hasn't seriously fucked anybody up!! But "Hey, give it a try, Mr Homo. Can't hurt. Don't forget, there's always suicide to fall back on."

Steve99, get with the program, sinner!

Other Comments by newatheist

235. Comment #47354 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 7:40 am

Davis says

Of course. I realise that it is comforting for you to hold these beliefs about me and about other people, but if you really are the open-minded, tolerant and rational people that you claim to be, then perhaps you should stop projecting your thought patterns and your philosophies upon everyone else.

Vs
David says

firstly no matter what is said you are going to believe that the Bible is historically wrong. I realize that this fulfills a deep psychological need for you but I'm afraid that such fundamentalism doesn't really help me or any kind of rational discussion.

That's strange! Only this week I was called a Bible bashing bastard! And one of the windows of my church was put in. I have no doubt whatsoever that even though there are nice atheists, those who discuss philosophically, yet the language of hatred is such, that other human beings will use it as an excuse for persecution.

And what makes you think they were athiests? Or do you just want them to be athiests.

You have still not sid why the bible is an old universe book. Nor have you read the scientific debate on homosexuality. You are just spouting more lies and conspiracy theories - aren't you!

Other Comments by BillySands

236. Comment #47356 by Fedler on June 4, 2007 at 8:09 am

David,

I think a quick reminder is in order. It's not you, personally, that people don't respect. They just don't respect your beliefs and, as such, cannot be expected to take them seriously until some non-disputable evidence presents itself.

On a lighter note, I did appreciate your YouTube video. Of course, I disagreed with most of what you said but I appreciated seeing an actual living, breathing human being rather than just words typed on a computer screen. I wish I could return the favor, but lack the video equipment to do so.

Other Comments by Fedler

237. Comment #47357 by Coel on June 4, 2007 at 8:18 am

I think a quick reminder is in order. It's not you, personally, that people don't respect. They just don't respect your beliefs [. . .]

Well I don't respect him. If what someone actually says is not what David wants it to be he simply fabricates a quote -- he is a Liar for Jesus with no integrity.

Other Comments by Coel

238. Comment #47358 by Coel on June 4, 2007 at 8:22 am

To wee flea (David Robertson)

In response to my "I repeat my challenge: please point to ONE place in you book where your report Dawkins's views that is NOT a distortion." you say "p57. (on Dawkins arguments that someone must have designed the Designer)."

Well really David! You do realise that you entirely grant the whole of Dawkins's thrust in that passage, do you not?

The Argument from Design postulates that "complex, purposeful things can only have come from a superior designer".

Dawkins says, fine, if we grant that premise, then God must need a designer.

And you reply, with words to the effect of "We won't even attempt to provide an explanation for God, we'll just assert that God is. If the Argument from Design suggests that complex, purposeful things like God require a creator then we'll simply ignore the Argument from Design!".

You are, without any reason or justification, just saying "God is" followed by "we don't need to provide any reason or explanation for him".

In doing that you've abandoned the Argument from Design and any pretence that your stance is based on evidence of logic.

You say that "Who made God?" is a question you "would expect from a six year old". But this 6-yr-old's question causes you to abandon reason and leap straight into blind faith -- even the six year old is more insightful than you!

You say you are "genuinely surprised" to find Dawkins making an argument you find "banal". I could reply that I am surprised that a grown-up Christian should be so oblivious to the power of the question -- but I'm not; I have got used to the utter stupidity and cluelessness of preachers, unable to comprehend even at the level of a 6-yr-old!

[Apologies for the tone and ad-hom of the above, but since that's your style in your book I thought you'd appreciate it if I followed suit.]

You see, Dawkins is right to state that everything we actually know about the universe, all the actual evidence from the universe, tells us that more-complex, more-capable entities arise over time from simpler, less-capable entities.

Sure, you can then say "well God is an exception; we'll just postulate him as totally other than everything else". Fine, you can do that. But don't pretend you have evidence pointing to that; and don't pretend that the Argument from Design supports you; all you have is a leap of faith; the evidence points entirely the other way.

That was Dawkins's point. And you back him up, hook, line and sinker, by your dogmatic, evidence-free assertion that God is indeed like that, and postulated from faith, not evidence.

Oh, and here are some of the distortions of Dawkins in that passage of yours:

"Your argument goes like this. Evolution is true. Evolution explains the illusion of design. The design argument is the main argument for God. Therefore there is no God." -- Dawkins doesn't say that at all.

"I am genuinely surprised to find the world's most famous atheist . . . using it ["Who created God?" ] as THE intellectual foundation for his atheism." -- he doesn't; the foundation of his atheism is the lack of evidence for God.

"I realise for you that is a nonsense because the core of your creed is that evolution means that everything starts from the simple and becomes more complex" -- nope, Dawkins doesn't say that; there are plenty of things that stay simple and don't become more complex.

"Who says that everything, including God himself, has to come from something?" -- the Argument from Design does! Unless you add a special-pleading, get-out clause for God; is that what you want to do?

"When you state that you can disprove God because there can de facto never be anything that was uncreated you are engaging in a circular argument. " -- Dawkins never makes that argument. As usual you distort.

"Let us assume for the moment that evolution is true, why would that disprove God? [. . .] He [Miller] strongly disagrees with Behe and with the whole ID movement. By your logic he should then be an atheist." -- utter distortion again; Dawkins has never said that evolution disproves God, and his "logic" does not say that only an atheist can disagree with Behe/ID.

"you [Dawkins] argued that we don't know where matter came from but one day scientists will find out." -- Hmm, did he say will find out or might find out? Knowing you, I suspect it was the latter, and that, as usual, you distort.

"Let us assume for the moment that evolution is true, why would that disprove God? [. . .] He [Miller] strongly disagrees with Behe and with the whole ID movement. By your logic he should then be an atheist." -- utter distortion again; Dawkins has never said that evolution disproves God, and his "logic" does not say that only an atheist can disagree with Behe/ID.

"you [Dawkins] argued that we don't know where matter came from but one day scientists will find out." -- Hmm, did he say will find out or might find out? Knowing you, I suspect it was the latter, and that, as usual, you distort.

"Why is there something rather than nothing? [. . .] That is not a question which you can just brush aside or express no interest in."

OK, so what's your answer then? Why is there a God rather than nothing at all? If your answer is "there just IS OK" then you are brushing the question aside.

"You like to suggest that your position is a logical one caused by the fact that Darwin has raised your own consciousness and you seem to think that those who do not agree with so are not so highly evolved (at least in consciousness)." -- this one really is a stupid misrepresentation. The idea that Dawkins would suggest that different members of the same species have evolved to different degrees is just clueless.

And just a final comment:

"In bringing up the argument of the origin of matter and of the universe you have in fact scored an enormous own goal. Instead of proving that there almost certainly is no God you have demonstrated that there almost certainly is."

David, in discussing the origin of matter/universe/God you have demonstrated your vacuousness. Saying that the origin of the universe is explained by "God did it" only begins to be an explanation of you explain why there is a God rather than nothing. Without that, simply starting with a God is no improvement on simply starting with a universe.

And asserting that God has-to-exist or has-always-existed or created-himself or whatever
is no improvment on just saying the universe has-to-exist or has-always-existed or created-itself or whatever -- none of those even begin to be an explanation.

As you rightly say, some 6-yr-olds can see that. Why can't you?

By the way, you avoided my question: If you considered that you could bring someone to the Christian faith by telling a lie, would you consider it acceptable and moral to do so?

Other Comments by Coel

239. Comment #47365 by Hip_Priest on June 4, 2007 at 8:48 am

I think a quick reminder is in order. It's not you, personally, that people don't respect. They just don't respect your beliefs

I don't respect David - not because of his religious views but for the way he is so unashamed about his views on sexuality. I've known families torn apart because a gay person's parents have been told by their respective holy man about the sins of homosexuality. I hate the way religions have isolated sexuality from other issues (race, disability, age and even gender in some churches) as a 'question of conscience'. Its a question of bigotry David. It wouldn't be so bad if he based these views solely on scripture, thats just ignorant. But to claim that there is actual evidence that homosexuality is not moral or natural is hugely disingenuous and plain crazy. As is the claim that a homosexual lifestyle is so perverse that the secular scientific establishment needs to protect it from the world by conspiring against the publication of evidence.

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

240. Comment #47370 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 8:58 am

This wont come as a suprise, but I dont respect David either. How can you? He is an abusive and evasive liar who uses his delusion to justify immorality.
There certainly are christians I have a lot of respect for as people. I even respect the fact their faith is important to them, but the bottom line is, I am convinced that they are deluded.

BTW when I was a christian, I used to be homo-phobic. However, since I left the church, I stopped being scared of Ted Haggard ;-)

Other Comments by BillySands

241. Comment #47376 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 9:14 am

Mostly agreed. I just can't respect the way he and especially devolved make and repeat claims which have been criticised in past articles, and behave as though the conversations never happened. The only thing about their approach that could be construed as respectable is the strength they draw from their convictions, to wade into "enemy territory" and consistently make a scene - but their convictions are rotten and they seem to suffer memory loss from any previous discourse they've engaged in, effectively rendering these threads a bitter exchange of monologues - it's not courageous so much as just exasperating..

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

242. Comment #47384 by stan on June 4, 2007 at 9:40 am

Thanks for the final post Wee Flea. (For the avoidance of doubt, I mean your last but one post.)

I didn't read it all unfortunately... there simply isn't the time in the day.

Can you just quickly confirm however in case I missed you answering the question - are the Pope and Graham Norton going to hell and, if so, whose suffering will give you more pleasure?

Other Comments by stan

243. Comment #47408 by Zaphod on June 4, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Wow. Looks like that David guy got seriously pwned.

Better luck next time David.

Other Comments by Zaphod

244. Comment #47449 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Btw the word for create used in genesis (bara) does not imply evolution

Other Comments by BillySands

245. Comment #47562 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2007 at 1:08 am

Ouch, seems David didn't like what I have been saying and his god has given me a bad back as of yesterday! So in my pain and suffering I cannot make it to the library to go do more research on this. However, I have been thinking about this and I have decided that no matter where I get my info from he will dismiss it all anyway. So just for the rest of you here is a little amusement about The Council of Nicaea

Ok, setting the scene between the 4th and 6th Centuries The Arians and The Catholics were having a civil war, the reason? The Arians were saying that Jesus was a bit less Divine than his dad, a subordinate and not quite as amazing. Arius the leader is quoted to have said

"A creation is less than its creator. The Son is less than the Father that 'begot' him. In the Beginning was the Creator God and the Son did not exist."

Then you have a chap called Athanasius, Arius's political rival, he was more of a belief and experience of "Divine Mystery" kind of chap, none of this fluffy nonsense about subordinates for him

So here you have a situation whereby there was not a proper defined job status for Jesus and people were arguing and killing each other over this lack of proper Orthodoxy, (flare of trumpets, drum roll...) in steps Emperor Constantine

He is fed up with the likes of Arius and Athanasius mucking up his dream of a United Christian Europe (I swear this is Tony bLiar in a previous life hehehe!) In 325AD he demands this thing be settled once and for all over this mere "matter of words"(He wrote letters to the above pleading with them to shut up in 324)

He gathers as many "holy" men as he possibly could and they all met up in Nicaea to finally talk all this through. Funnily enough this debate raged for months and they were getting nowhere. So he sticks his oar in and comes up with "homoousion" Greek for "of one substance".

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, Jesus, if he ever existed, was changed from a carpenter's son into "Divine Essence" in one massive human argument .

However this got even more silly, Constantine had been highly influenced in his decision by a Spanish chap called Ossius. When Ossius fell out of favour an exiled Arius returns and is given the cathedral in Constantinople. So despite there being what is now referred to as Nicaean Creed which the Catholics now revel in, Constantine, when he died in 337 AD, died a baptised ARIAN!

It gets worse and more silly as time wonders on but suffice to say I think my point has been made. A group of HUMAN MALES got together and debated, amongst other things, Jesus's divinity. Why? Because Constantine wanted a more Unified Europe, remember the way Roman's ruled was to conquer people but mostly leave people in charge that the populace trusted because policing it was a bit of a bugger otherwise. What better could Constantine do than to grab everybody who had any importance in Europe whatsoever and assert his authority over them debating such an "important" issue


Now I know David is going to whine and bawl and say I went to an atheist website etc and I did hehehe http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/arianism.html

I will go search others when I have the time (and a better back) and see if the story changes but I think the chap, Kenneth Humphreys, whose website I read most of this off of has been doing his reading and quotes his sources at the top of the page.

Apologies for ranting but I felt like it! Please by all means add your own impressions cos I think I will go grab a few books when I have the money and really have a go at this, its very interesting.
Cheers, Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

246. Comment #47586 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 3:07 am

Philip,
Hope your back gets better - nasty god!
The cannon is still confused. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/otcanon.html
I wouldn't worry about david, he will provide no evidence of his own. He once criticised a link of mine one because it had skeptic in the title - by his thinking, it was therefore invalid - What a chump!

Other Comments by BillySands

247. Comment #47589 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2007 at 3:17 am

Its ok, David's god may have caused my back pain but the devil allowed Ibuprofen to be invented and stuck into Boots chemists. You can tell the devil made it cos it makes me feel better whilst doing other organs like my liver and heart not as much good!!

You will notice when the canon isn't right, the religious seem to then point and fire it at those who questioned them arf arf!

Other Comments by Philip1978

248. Comment #47598 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 3:45 am

Yeah, suffering is all god's fault. In an attempt to undo his work, the devil helped us invent medicine. I think satan gets unfair treatment in the bible http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

You will notice when the canon isn't right, the religious seem to then point and fire it at those who questioned them arf arf!

BOOM BOOM!

Other Comments by BillySands

249. Comment #47605 by Philip1978 on June 5, 2007 at 4:01 am

Good Grief, an estimated 32.9 million versus 10 that Satan was asked to do in God's name, poor old Satan!

Reminds me of Simon Magus in the bible, caught doing the same tricks as big J and then got stoned to death for doing it. His character is then vilified into some greedy little man all because he could do everything big J could! Tis where we get Simony from, I'll warrant he did nowt wrong as well as dear old Satan!

Other Comments by Philip1978

250. Comment #47608 by steve99 on June 5, 2007 at 4:12 am

Steve, I've had a look at a significant amount of the literature on the subject.It is not the case that the majority of studies indicate that homosexuality is normal and natural.

No, David, it is the case that the majority of studies indicate that homosexual is normal and natural. That is the foundation of current psychiatric understanding of homosexuality, and has been the case for over 30 years. I am sorry David, but given the choice of your view of psychiatry and that of the psychiatric organisations of almost all western countries, I take theirs. And that you don't is undisputable evidence that your are abusing science, and bigoted.

The most that can be said is that homosexuality occurs in different species.

That, David, is the actual definition of natural - what happens in Nature. And it occurs in around 1 in 10 humans. That is the definition of normal.

No, the current scientific climate on homosexuality arose out of the opinion expressed above that there is no debate to be had.

Shame on you - and I really mean that. You have no idea the way that science works. Science is all about debate. If there were no debate, there would be no need for research, and no publications. There is constant research about homosexuality. Don't you remember the 'gay sheep' discussion a short while ago? The nature, frequency, and causes of homosexuality are a subject of huge interest to science.

Anyone with any awareness of Hebrew would realise that the Hebrew word for day is one that can indicate a significant period of time.

Can't you see the arrogance of this statement? In the statements of the Free Church that you personally are supposed to agree with, it explicitly says '6 days', not '6 periods of time'. If there was such doubt about it, why weren't the words changed? Are you personally claiming to know better? If so, shouldn't you in all concience set up your own denomination based on your views? Otherwise, remaining in the Free Church when you have such disagreement with its fundamental doctrines is surely hypocritical.

It's such a stupid question. Does Dawkins require a bodyguard?

It isn't a stupid question. I am not sure about Dawkins, but Sam Harris does. You were the one calling atheists fundamentalists like the worst that religion provides. For that to be the case, there must surely be religious people who have had substantial and regular death threats from current atheists.

In fact many Christians do require bodyguards - the Pope, Billy Graham and Ian Paisley! What does that prove?

Quite a bit. Apart from being controversial celebrities (which is generally a reason for protection anyway), both The Pope and Paisley have enemies from other religions. Remember the assassination attempt on John Paul II?

And why do you cite McGrath and Collins as prominent believers?

For a particular reason, which I am surprised you did not realise. This is an analagous to apostasy - many religions have the strongest hatred for those who convert away.

Of course, because if he was then he would become just like us! This of course is a classic example of open-minded tolerant thinking and not the sort of religious fundamentalism that we are complaining about!

I am not asking you to become 'like us'. I am asking you to become open to reason. There are plenty of religious people who are open to reason - theologists who are prepared to question, to debate. I have many close Christian friends who are prepared to debate their views and have them challenged a