1. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11579 by oj on December 5, 2006 at 3:46 pm

David,

What about this then His attention and He?

So, it is a He?

You have, even if you try to escape it an "image" of a god that you call He? Strange.

Btw, here in Norway some female theologians used the word "Gudny" (a she) instead of "Gud" (= God, a he) ;-)

Ole

2. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11571 by oj on December 5, 2006 at 3:12 pm

David said: I believe in all gods including sky-gods.

So, you are a pantheist?

Does this mean that you do not believe in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings?

Ole

3. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11534 by oj on December 5, 2006 at 12:20 pm

David,

You say a lot in post #25 that make sense and that I personally agree with!

Would it be possible for you to explain what kind of god you believe in?

As I understand it is not the typical "sky-god" from the bronze-age you are talking about, or?

Ole

4. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11311 by oj on December 4, 2006 at 6:20 am

Would any of the atheists here like to prove that their thoughts are absolutely free of delusion?

David Mathews, you place a hopeless question here. Who is free of delusion? Perhaps no one.

You say (other places here) that you have things directly from God. How is that possible?

When we (who do not have this God-"connection") read what you say, we see that you borrow a lot from the science that you dislike.

Nothing you say confirm your "connection" or "contact". ;-)

How do you explain this?

Ole

5. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10595 by oj on November 28, 2006 at 1:27 pm

David,

I kind of enjoy reading your posts. You remind me of Dostoevsky - some of his characters (see "Notes from the Underground" for instance)

Talking nonsense is man's only privilege that distinguishes him from all other organisms.
(Crime and Punishement)

Kind regards,

Ole

6. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10456 by oj on November 28, 2006 at 6:32 am

Hello again David,

How did you get this knowledge about you God?

Ole

7. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10443 by oj on November 28, 2006 at 5:58 am

David Mathews,

I'm a bit disappointed with your latest God "things"...

What you had to say about problems related to science, was on the other hand interesting.

A rational examination of religion and science should be a good topic here.

Perhaps we at first can agree that neither religion nor science is the root of all evil?

What is the problem with religion?
What is the problem with science?

Are the problems only in how we use (or misuse) it?

Etc....?

Regards,

Ole

P.S.
Have you read Dennet's book "Breaking the Spell"? (He is more softspoken than Dawkins.)

8. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #9001 by oj on November 23, 2006 at 6:01 am

David Robertson you said:
One thing that really annoys some atheists is when Christians promise to pray for them.

It reminded me of an experience I had a long time ago. I attended a meeting held by some young "newborne" Christians here in Norway. I asked them if they had read the famous lecture that a Norwegian poet held in 1931 called "Kristendommen, den tiende landeplage" (Christendom the 10th plague).

Non of them knew about this and that the poet was accused for blasphemi. (He was later acquitted. He did his own defence).

So I quoted shortly from the beginning of his lecture where he said that since we were created in God's image, maybe he was like us and even had sexual organs?

They were shocked by this quote. They told me that they would pray for me. Later, I was told that several of them had done this at a meeting. Prayed for me! (Btw, I never felt anything of this..)

Was I annoyed?

No, but I felt sorry for them.

Regards,

Ole

9. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #7088 by oj on November 17, 2006 at 5:20 am

Martin said:

They have been conditioned from birth, like pavlov's dogs, to see religion as a good thing, to see god as real, the bible as real.

Good point. I also think this is why you see a lot of anger in some who "lost their faith".
Like at the Lynchburg Q&A session.

Ole

10. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6890 by oj on November 16, 2006 at 4:35 am

John Martin,

Thanks for a very interesting article!

May I ask you what you think about John Shelby Spong and his ideas?

I posted about Spong in the Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title) by David Robertson.

I don't think Robertson will answer it.

Regards,

Ole

11. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6663 by oj on November 15, 2006 at 9:30 am

David Robertson

Thanks for all your effort here!

It is a bit strange for me to discuss with ortodox people like you. I'm actually more used to the liberal types.

As a student I wanted to know more about religion, so I signed up for a class, even if I'm an atheist and not member of the Norwegian Church.

The professor was of the ortodox type and after some lessons he asked me to leave his class. "I don't want so many questions about the old and new testament". Since all the other students were Christians, I realised I'd better drop my "religion project" (Btw, for me it was a type of "useless knowledge" in the way Russel describe it in his essay by the same name).

Speaking of liberals:
There is an interesting liberal in USA, John Shelby Spong. He believes the time has come for intelligent Christians to grow up and admit there isn't a personal God of any kind. In other words - no "listener" for these prayers and petitions. ;-)

Spong accept Copernicus, Newton and Darwin and other scientist.

Let me quote from an article by Spong:
Next came Charles Darwin who related human life to the world of biology more significantly than anyone had heretofore imagined. He also confronted the human consciousness with concepts diametrically opposed to the traditional Christian world view. The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation out of which human life was still evolving. Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries; we were evolving, and indeed are still evolving, into higher levels of consciousness. Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative. So did the interpretation of the cross of Calvary as the moment of divine sacrifice when the ransom for sin was paid. Established Christianity clearly wobbled under the impact of Darwin's insights, but Christian leaders pretended that if Darwin could not be defeated, he could at least be ignored. It was a vain hope.

More here:http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html

David,

Good luck with your next essay about TGD!

Regards,

Ole

12. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6506 by oj on November 14, 2006 at 3:32 pm

In Comment #6388 by David Robertson he said:

I have read the Selfish Gene and a bit of Darwin. Not convinced by either.

What do you mean by "Not convinced by either"?

If you look at the history of science you will find a lot of "not convinced by"-people. People with power like the Inquisition.

Luckily in 1859 there was no Inquisition in England when Darwin published his famous book.

But in 1632, when Galileo published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican - they were active.
As we now, the Inquisition banned the book and ordered Galileo to appear in Rome. Found guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment.

David, if you invested more in trying to understand the evolution theory, maybe you then would look back on the position you now have as a kind of "Ptolemaic positon"? ... ;-)

While on the "Beagle", Darwin was quite orthodox (perhaps like your own possition now?). He returned from the voyage in 1836 and slowly from there he developed his brilliant theory.

His theory is quite easy to understand while quantum physics is not (as R.D. often say)!

Regards,

Ole

13. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6374 by oj on November 14, 2006 at 12:14 am

David Robertson (and others).

An excellent guide to understanding evolution theory is this book:

Daniel C. Dennett: "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"
(Subtitle: Evolution and the Meaning of Life)

Ole

14. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6299 by oj on November 13, 2006 at 2:16 pm

David Robertson,

Sorry , I overlooked your answer to me. Have read it now. Here are some comments:

You said: I do believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

I see, but do you find any evidence in the text that God is what you say?

If you read the bible as book and not as a scripture, you should see that nothing in it indicate any omniscience. All text indicate that it was written a long time ago by ordinary men (no women writer there).

Imagine if the bible had given the ratio of Pi to 3.14159265 instead of 3.1?
(The Egyptians had approximated Pi to a few decimal places centuries before the bible was written!!)

Then you say: I know very little about the theory of evolution and cannot really judge.

Ok, maybe you should do something about that?

Btw, here is a funny history from my own family. In the late 1800 an ancestor of mine was very interested in Darwin's theory. He bought "The Origin of the Species" and studied it. There was no other he could discuss it with. But at one time he met a man that in some sentences revealed that he knew about Darwin. My anchestor told this man that he had the book. "You must never tell it to anyone!" said the other man. That was the "Zeitgeist" in the North of Norway in the late 1800. Luckily things have changed.

Btw, David, you can find Darwin online here: http://darwin-online.org.uk/

And Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene" is available in a new edition from online bookstores like Amazone etc.

Regards and
good luck with studying the evolution theory!

Ole

15. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6198 by oj on November 13, 2006 at 4:31 am

David Robertson,

I asked you a question about evolution. (120. Comment #5958)
Maybe you overlooked it, so here it is again:

How do you look at Darwin and the theory of evolution ?

Kind regards,

Ole

16. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5958 by oj on November 12, 2006 at 3:12 am

Holly
"Just a small question - have any of you actually read the Bible before dismissing it as junk? "

The funny thing, Holly, is that many so-called Christians that I meet here in Norway (most Protestants, a few Catholics) seems to never have taken the time to read it.

I always suggest that they should do that: "Read it like a book! You are in for some big suprises ;-)"

As I said to Robertson (see Comment #5881), the only way that I find any meaning in that book is by reading it as a historic document.

In the reply to me (I really admire Robertson for what he does here) he said:
"It is primarily the story of God and of humanity and it offers us the best explanation of, and way to deal with, the evil in our midst."

The problem then is that the God (a man) you get is a very nasty one. Not omnipotent and not omniscient. You "jump" (Soren Kierkegaard understood faith as a leap over 70,000 fathoms of water) out of all reason.

*** Fiction or facts:***
Here in Norway we have some people that take the bible as facts. They believe that the world was created some 6000 years ago.

The historicity of the Old Testament has been a matter of debate, particularly since the 19th century. One group of scholars claimed that most of the societies mentioned in the Bible, such as the Assyrians and Babylonians, were allegedly fictional due to lack of archaeological evidence.

The funny thing is that archeology now has evidence of these civilisations (ruins of Nineveh, Babylon, and other cities were found).

Let me ask you two, Holly and Robertson (and other Christians as well):

(I now suppose you accept the archeological facts of Babylon etc.)

How do you look at Darwin and the theory of evolution ?

Kind regards,

Ole

17. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5881 by oj on November 11, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Hi again David Robertson,

Thanks for the answer even if you kind of "escaped" it.

Perhaps I can ask you this:

Would it be possible for you to read the bible like an ordinary book, and not as a scripture?
(Read it like you just read Dawkins book)

You see, if I read the Old Testament, I'm suddenly brought back into the late bronze age.
According to some Bible scholars, the Old Testament was composed between the 5th century BC and the 2nd century BC, though parts of it, such as the Torah, date back much earlier.

In chapter 7 in TGD, Dawkins talk about the "Good" Book and the changing moral "Zeitgeist".
He also gives some recent examples (late 1800, early 1900 - eg. like Wells 1902-thinking). Not long ago, but very strange today.

If we move back in time, "adjusting" the Zeitgeist, we can perhaps understand some of the (now) absurd moral of Joshua (at Jerico) and the other characters.

If we now "move" thousand year forward into the Roman time, where Yeshua (also called Jesus - a very common name) appeared, we see that the Zeitgeist has changed. BUT, there are still a lot of ugly morals in the New Testament (as Dawkins give several examples of).

If we compare the Old and New Testament with other books from that period, we will see a
similar Zeitgeist (like instruction for genocide, enslavements, rape, etc. etc.).

As pointed out in TGD, no one is selling the Iliad or our Nordic Saga as a foundation for morality. BUT, the Bible is sold, and bought, as a guide to how people should live their lives. Therein lies the problem.

I'm pretty sure that you, David Robertson, only use a minor part of what Jesus said as your moral guide (The Golden Rule, etc.) - but what about the rest - the major part of that book?

Regards,

Ole

18. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5784 by oj on November 11, 2006 at 3:55 am

Bravo David Robertson,

Not only did you take the time to read "The God Delusion" (Btw, I'm pretty sure President Bush never will takes his time to do that). You also took the time to write a long article about your reaction, and now you join this discussion.

Some of the comments here are a bit rough, but still you take the time to comment on them.
(I aggree with you - let's keep away from personal abuse!)

I look forward to your promised take on the different chapters from the book. But, perhaps you could give us a short reply here on one (central) questions raised:

"Is the Bible to be taken as literally true?"

Kind regards,

Ole in Norway