451. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #103332 by BillySands on December 25, 2007 at 7:28 am

If only they could read properly, they would see that the "virgin birth prophecy" (Isaiah 7:14) has nothing to do with Jesus. I guess that knowing this means that you have to conclude that Matthew was making it all up - hence why they ignore context on this case. It's funny how the fundies will go to the strangest lengths to argue that an atheist is taking a verse out of context though.

452. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101380 by BillySands on December 20, 2007 at 9:35 am

He clearly can't be trusted.

Too true, there are plenty of examples of this - his promise that David would always have a descendant on the throne for example - the last Davidic king was zedekiah. This of course is also a failed "prophecy"

Wooter seems to think The Bible is good guidance for morality

Yes, it is strange that he would consider someone who drowns his children as a good role model

453. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101305 by BillySands on December 20, 2007 at 8:00 am

Who arranged all connections between trees and cleaning air at night, (photosynthesis.), sunlight and vegetables, water and vaporizing and coming back to the earth as rain, servant like animals like chickens and sheep and cows that eat dirt and grass but human beings nutritious food. and on and on.

Erm, no-one. Oxygen is actually a pollutant. It didn't exist on the early earth.

Who created disease?

PJG

I think he is not responding, because the bible says that god is a liar 2Chron. 18:19-22

Nice picture Hungarianelephant

Doubt I waste too much time responding to wooter, seem to be getting fed up correcting the same old creationist ignorance and I'm busy trying to deconvert members of my old church on one of their blogs

454. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90822 by BillySands on November 26, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Thanks for the link Quetz. As usual it sucked ass. I like the advert for his book at the end.

SG, are you suggesting yet another split in the free church? Here's to the birth of the "real nae nae kidding, free-er than those hell bound bastards free chuch or Scotland"

Just found out last week that someone is no longer talking to me because I slated god in a news paper - those whacky presbyterians!

Philip, read that essay you gave to quetz, on the bible pretty cool.

455. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90695 by BillySands on November 26, 2007 at 6:48 am

Yep Philip, apparently I missed him getting banned, but he said something to the effect that he did not need to be nice to atheists on his last post - what a nut bag!

Quetz Do you have that link? Maybe you could put it on your blog and we can invite David - only joking!

windweaver, this will make you laugh http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/133 it was Devolved's proof that dinosaurs lived with people. Personally, I find the flintstones more convincing

456. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90656 by BillySands on November 26, 2007 at 3:41 am

I think we have a good reason why these peiople believe this rubbish right at the start of the article - tell 7 year olds the flood did it. Poison their minds young, that's the way!
Shame wee flea is banned, he could have told us about how the earth today is not the same one god created (yet still insisting science and mythology can mix). I could have done with a laugh.

457. Tropical fish can live for months out of water

Comment #88626 by BillySands on November 18, 2007 at 5:01 am

Some kilifish have eggs that survive out of water too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killifish

458. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87110 by BillySands on November 11, 2007 at 8:14 am

That's an argument?

459. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86558 by BillySands on November 9, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Tibor

Point 1: Yes, but if you reread what I've written you can find the answer: "that's what the other commandments are for". In both of the above cases there are two commandments which impose different ways of acting on us. In the second case: There is a commandment which says that you should not lie, but in those circumstances not lying would mean murder, and another commandment says that you should not kill either.

You cant say dont kill and then order killing - it just makes such a command pointless

Morality either exist and than it is absolute or it doesn't exist. A relative moral code is not morality at all. It cannot provide the functions that morality should provide. That's why you need God to explain morality.

You will need to define what you mean here by morality, demonstrate it is real, then explain why god is needed.

I take the easier way. I say that it was never moral to do it. :) However I would like to see the verse from the New Testament.

The owners of slaves would disagree with you - such is the result of relativism. I have been unsure of your religious beliefs. It would be helpful to know them for discussion. The NT never condemns slavery, and paul even sends a slave back to his master (Onesisimus in philemon).
Here is one verse; "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ". (Ephesians 6:5) Or Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.
Not masters, set your slaves free.
The OT is much clearer eg Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness."
You may beat them too "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property". (Exodus 21:20-21)

If you are not a christian, then you will dismiss this. However, that does not change the fact that slavery was/is acceptable in some cultures - this is not an absolute.

460. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86554 by BillySands on November 9, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Funny, the bish thinks being a theory makes evolution less likely than a hypothesis that rests on delusion and wifful ignorance. Does he deny that there are primates in the clergy - ignorant prick!

461. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86391 by BillySands on November 9, 2007 at 6:09 am

Tibor

Point one, actually, there are no conditions attached to this either

Point 2 - yet god commands killing - quite frequently - as in the book of joshua.

There appear to be several views on conscience and god. None of which are testable - there is no way to distiguish them. We are supposed to know right from wrong (according to some parts of the bible anyway - others say we have to learn), so to say the environment clouds this, is self defeating - I should still know what is right or wrong - regardless. There are tough moral questions that the "religious" cant agree on - surely they would still know the right answer if the biblical view was true? Moral values are relative and you will find examples of cultures and individualsbreaking your moral codes and finding it perfectly moral to do so. I have never seen anyone demonstrate a need for a god to explain morality

462. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86158 by BillySands on November 8, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Tibor

Point 1 Actually, Eph 6:1-3 comes to mind: "1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Note the link to obedience to your parents.

Point 2 No exceptions are given, it clearly says don't lie

Point 3 see 2

In the other hand: christians say that God not only gave us commands but He also gave us our conscience, which tells us what is good or bad in different situations.

Christians say a lot of things without evidence. The main point I am making here is backing up sean fletcher's post that I took these from that the commandments are not a good or absolute rule about how to behave - you appear to agree in part here.
As for god giving us a conscience to allow us to know right from wrong, I have a couple of biblical issues with this. It was humans who were responsible for gaining the knowledge of right and wrong - you know the talking snake and the eating of the fruit. The bible also says we need to learn right from wrong (eg Rom. 10:13-14 and 2:21).
Stepping out of the bible, if that were true, christians (in fact everyone) should agree on what is right in a given situation. This is clearly not so.

463. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86123 by BillySands on November 8, 2007 at 7:50 am

Honour thy Mother and Father.

So, if Mum or Dad say go steal, lie, fornicate, murder and make idols, I should.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

So, if you were hiding some jews in Holland in 1940, and you were asked" are you hiding some Jews" and you answered "No", that would be immoral

Thou shalt not steal.

So, stealing food to save someone from starving to death would be wrong too.

Newsflash theists, moral values are relative Natural selection may equip us with the ability to behave in a moral fashion, but the standards we follow are not absolute. Also, by saying you cant be moral without god, theists are defining god as the source of morality - it is circular reasoning - they define god as the source of morality, therefore morals come from their god (or the version of him they want to portray). If you do not accept the values of their god, then they do not consider you to be moral. Shame they cat agree amongst whemselves on certain "moral" issues - like gay bishops, condoms, sex before marriage and capital punishment to name a few - I thoughy it should be absolutely clear if absolutes existed

464. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85797 by BillySands on November 7, 2007 at 6:11 am

But note carefully an important point in this instance: the bible "proof" for this behaviour comes from the gospel of mark, the New Testament, not the old. ie post-Jesus , not pre-Jesus.

Apparantly the JW's use this verse too"
"but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:20).

465. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83811 by BillySands on October 31, 2007 at 11:10 am

What I find interesting is the much demonstrated athiest obsession with homosexuality, sex, abortion and contraception. When talking about Catholicism it's all that seems to get a mention on here. This isn't directed at you Philip, I am aware of your wider interest in Catholic teaching as evidenced through your understanding of the guidelines for drivers. As for the others, I think a little psychoanalysis is in order.

It's a question of allowing people to make their own minds up, and in the case of homosexuality, not branding someone as evil - especially if they dont have a choice. It is also about not leting some abstinate man tell folk what is right and wrong.
Dont confusearguing against religion with an obsession about god either - that implies we think he exists, we dont.

466. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83774 by BillySands on October 31, 2007 at 8:14 am

Cheers Epeeist,
If we have no morals, I guess that trashes the argument from "moral law". I'm going to see Aubrey manning tonight, I think he is going to talk about intelligence and "morals" in other animals. Anyone near by, here is the link http://www.royalphil.arts.gla.ac.uk/home.htm
The next talk is on consciousness.

Philip, I think wee flea would stookie him with his big book and then light a bon fire - using cathoilics a kindlin - just like the good old days

467. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83756 by BillySands on October 31, 2007 at 6:30 am

Booo, the pope! Get wee flea to sort out this antichrist. Are any of the regular nutters on any threads at the moment?

468. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81724 by BillySands on October 25, 2007 at 5:21 am

Whether a god is there or not, the theists point is one of personal ignorance, so it is not an argument that god exists.

469. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #81722 by BillySands on October 25, 2007 at 5:18 am

In a way, science can tell us why we are here and the route we took getting here - big bang, natural selection and evolution. Understanding the randomness of the events driving evolution (mutation, climate change, geographical isolation - and many more) and the non random (but impartial) nature of natural selection, strongly imply no higher purpose to being here - reproduction is what we are here to do.

The second point is that to ask why in the sense the religious mean, pre supposes a higher purpose. They can not demonstrate that one exists - as mentioned above, science shows one probably doesn't exist. Therefore until such times as they can demonstrate a purpose, their question is meaningless

470. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #81719 by BillySands on October 25, 2007 at 5:04 am

I find it inconsistent when christians point to laws as evidece of a law giver. They tend to forget the problem of their own fall doctrine - man sinned and corrupted the whole universe - therefore if there was a divine law giver, the laws as they are (according to christians) can not be the result of their god. They are effectively arguing laws exist despite their god.

Could a god not design a universe that is not hostile to us? We are in a cosmic shooting gallery and subject to many natural disasters

471. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80846 by BillySands on October 23, 2007 at 7:30 am

How about reason save the queen?

472. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80842 by BillySands on October 23, 2007 at 7:22 am

Would Richard have to sing god save the Queen at the ceremony?

473. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79117 by BillySands on October 16, 2007 at 7:43 am

Without an absolute basis for good and evil, Dawkins cannot
even condemn the "evils" of religion, or evil atheists.

Rubbish! All you need is an arbitrary set of values that do not agree with your own - no need for absolutes - which dont exists anyway, and if they did, natural selection could explain them.

Your moral absolutes presumably include keeping slaves (but being nice to them) and stoning adulterers. No? Then morals would seem to have changed since the time of Jesus.

And genocide (Ezekiel 9:5-7, Joshua 6:20-21), raping virgin POWs (Numbers 31:7-18), stoning homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), sabbath breakers (Exodus 31:12-15 ), non virgins (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) and generally killing non believers (2 Chronicles 15:12). Jesus essentially said the old laws were good an will not pass away eg Matt 5:18

The fact we think these are the laws of an evil bastard tends to suggest absolutes dont exist

where did the universe come from?

Well according to the Egyptians, the universe also had a begining. It shot out the penis of Amun as he made love to his hand

474. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78470 by BillySands on October 13, 2007 at 3:18 am

Mark, sorry to see you go, I have learned a lot from both you. I do feel you have gone to extra ordinarl length to try and make something that should have been simple become "fulfilled". Any way, all the best - you'll be back - christmas special? :-)

Epeeist How about some stick insects with some hummng bird muscles? I could also throw in some extra pax-6 genes to make them grow exta eyes, and knock out some Ubx and AbdA genes to make them develop extra arms and legs. I could also throw in some swordfish. In the mean time, could I interest you in a giant Galapagos tortoise with a blunderbuss strapped to its shell?

Steve The tit mice are usually nude, as these mice have a crippled immune system, which allows grafting. Should Dr Benway want some, we could do an areolar hair transplant - may also appeal to the fettish market too.

Praise Quetz for giving me the idea!

475. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78249 by BillySands on October 12, 2007 at 9:25 am

Mark, I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved indiscussing small details again, but here goes

In fact, the word "tevek" first comes in Genesis 1: the firmament (sky/atmosphere) was made "in the midst" of the waters: its effect was to divide the waters into those above and those below. It is not a point, since a point could not do that. It's not even just a line, its a 3-D hollow sphere, "in the middle" between waters beneath and waters above. I know you reject the Genesis account as incorrect, but the implied meaning of the word is not affected by that.

A sphere is an object that is defined by a continuous boundary. It therefore by definition has to be in the midst of something that is above and below it. It is therefore a point and not a path. Do you actually believe there is water above and below the earth? The bible talks of windows that allow the rain to fall (Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2, Isaiah 24:18-19, Jeremiah 51:15-16, and Malachi 3:10)

I Enoch (which Jude quotes from as inspired) says
"This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky" (1 Enoch 72:2-5).

Do you subscribe to this wiew?

Even Billy, who knows the Bible better than most here, could only come up with very feeble cases that I showed readily to contain certainly no contradiction, and indeed actually quite consistent meaning.

No you didn't! Since we are over analysing words, I said they were differences. If you want a contradiction, try these:

Matthew 1:16
"and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Vs

Luke 3:23
"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli"

Or

Matthew 27:3-5
"When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself."

Vs

Acts 1:18
"Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."

Here is one that also contains a failed prophecy:

Jeremiah 36:30
"Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have none to sit on the throne of David."

Vs

II Kings 24:6
"So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead."


JC There are no minimum orders, and Quetz will give to each who please him according to his (or her) needs.

476. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78239 by BillySands on October 12, 2007 at 8:29 am

Hi Lee,

An understanding of mutation is certainly important for designing vaccines or therapeutic agents. The war on antibiotic resistance to some pathogens is of course down to them evolving.

I am in the process of making incontinent lesbian seagulls for Quetz as we speak. When he takes delivery of these, I shall start work on the ferret - bombadeer beetle hybrids. They will run up the inside of enemies trouser legs, sink their teeth into something and detonate Bwaha ha ha. Then I'm going to make mice with boobs on their backs - but that's another story.
I have just found out I can make my name add up to 666, so I truly am Dr Evil Billy (Quetz can make his total 3 times that number - praise his tea pot)

477. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #78202 by BillySands on October 12, 2007 at 5:58 am

Has anyone done any studies in to the effect of muslim doctors starving themselves (Ramadan) and the threat to patients?

478. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78197 by BillySands on October 12, 2007 at 5:29 am

Briefly Mark,

The butterfly "eye" is a result of a great number of selected advantages acumulating over time. Selection stops the current pattern being dammaged, because it is selected against as it is not so efficient an anti predator device. Therefore, the ability to avoid being eaten is strongly selected for - any mutation that is not advantageous or pruduces a better defence will not be selected for. One problem with your view though is that you believe god created creatures more or less as they are. We know the eyes are a antipredator feature, but you also believe that all life was intended to be vegetarian - this poses you with a problem.
We can actually see changes in patterning of animals today - peppered moths being one example, but more spectacularly with pigeons. Some populations are developing a white rump (we have observed the frequency change). This id due to selection by falcons. White rumped pigeons evade attack much more often than normal ones. Perhaps once the white rump becomes fixed, we may see further fine tuning as a result of the falcons evolving counter measures of their own.

Comments?

479. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78168 by BillySands on October 12, 2007 at 3:08 am

Devolved,

God made the evil talking snake and people did not know good from evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - get a grip!

Also, where is all this flood water now? If you argue that god could look after noah if he wanted to, then why bother to send a flood in the first place? Just kill the sinners. Show some consistency at least.

Got any evidence that morality has any higher meaning?

480. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77916 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 5:30 am

Philip,
I get the impression that wee fleas church is a swinging and gay ministers club. I'm sure Scottish geologist can provide the links if David wants to lie about it not being so.
David, do you wear a frock at services?

481. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77910 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 5:00 am

Irate_atheist,

I now have a wonderful image of Benny Hill polishing wee flea's head

482. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77907 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 4:53 am

IRATE_ATHEIST.
Is Benny hill not considered anachronistic and sexist? A bit like churches in general

483. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77889 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 3:00 am

This is the article Flea refers to http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2187274,00.html#article_continue

(why did he not put it up?)

It makes none of the claims David is making, and predicting the date of your death is not something claimed in the article above - it may be possible though. We can tell at what age someone will develop huntington's disease at by looking at the gene. I do think it will not be too accurate, but that is not what is claimed in the article. If david knew anything about chromosomes or the requirements for life, he would realise this is no mean feat. Also the article isn't claiming the creation of a new organism de novo, nor is venter claiming as Fleas article suggests that he is using techniques developed by himself. PCR, ligation, oligonucleotide synthesis, transformation etc have all been around for a while, where does it claim venter invented them.
Interestingly, the assayers link says Venter has actually set up a non profit organisation.

Boy David, when you talk rubbish, you do it in big style - Dont lie, its not big or clever!

484. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77884 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 2:28 am

David,

My point (for Billy - who always seems to have difficulty getting the point) was simply that the linkage of science and capitalism is as dangerous as the linkage of science and the military. Still not sure what the Catholic Church and Benny Hinn have to do with either!

Christian money making machines that exploit people - DID i REALLY HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT?

Now as bad a mix as christianity and politics or the millitary though.

Where do you think most the funding comes from to produce the medicines that you take for granted? From the Church? The government? It is a sad fact of lfe, but market forces drive research - there is not enough money from other sources. It does annoy me when Africans cant afford AIDS treatments - almost as much as the ract the religious have helped propagate its spread with their stupid teachings. It would be nice if you religious lot got rid of some ofyour posh palaces and jewlery and paid for some medicince to sort out the mess you lot have helped to make.

In other words the whole thing was spin about something that is not that exciting after all.

No David - naughty boy - Try reading about designing pathways to optimise flux through various metabolic / synthetic pathways for example. Let me as a biochemist tell you that there are potential benefits - whether they are realised is a different matter - what is you point?

1) Why did this site post the original spin in the first place and not the refutation?

Now David, this article went up on the 5th, the guardian published on the 10th - I know you have a Dawkins obsession, but do you really think he can see into the future? The article is here for both the sane and insane to comment on. You are not censored, so what is your point? It's not like your site where you wield absolute control.

Why dont you warn us the pope is the antichrist on your site?
If as you claim (which I dont believe) that the pope is not the antichrist, do you not speak out against the Westminister confession of faith? Dont you realise it fuel hate, and by doing nothing, you are maintaining that hatred?

Of course you realise it. You are an evil little priest

485. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #77156 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Yes – I love it. As I do most of Shakespeare – but Hamlet is the best – perhaps because it is the Scottish play!

Ah set in the good old Scottish town of Elinore - Denmark! jer spise svin penis - thicko!

For you – and several other similar comments that follow. No – my comment was not an attack on atheists but a simple observation that compared with such an event (the death of a child) discussions about elephants in fridges is trivial – whether those discussions are by theists or atheists. I included myself in that remark. But you guys are so sensitive that you cannot consider the possibility of anything being outwith your own paradigm.

Surely you believe the child is in heaven, why are you not celebrating? To use your own words against you "then I'm afraid that you are acting inconsistently with your own beliefs. "

Why does having no afterlife make life any less valuble? surely theism devalues life? As the bumper sticker says "kill them all and let god sort them out"

"We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. Our genes made us. We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than throwaway survival machines".

Want to put that in context and explain how it devalues life - oh you cant, you just quote mined?

Gosh, nothing fails like prayer.

I bet the child's Heavenly Father did nothing while the earthly parents were frantically doing everything they could.



Speaking of cheap shots… (of course no howls of outrage from the rest of the faithful)..

Oh, touch a wee nerve? prayer doesnt work - prove us wrong rather than pretend this was a cheap shot. Know any amputees with new limbs?

Perhaps Carr you could tell us where the Bible said that polygamy was morally right. It certainly recognized it happened but I am not aware of any text saying it was right. But perhaps you could enlighten us?

Are you sure you have studied the bible? Exodus 21:10 "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."

Not only is the elephant invisible but there is no physical aspect to it at all. Its not grey

An invisible elephant that is Grey. Holy mary mother of god a miracle! - seriously David, have you considered joining DENSA?

ARE NORMAL ELEPHANTS INVISIBLE? Why then do you assume other properties of them?

Why did David stare at the carton of orange juice?

Because it said concentrate

Enough fun for tonight

486. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77043 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 9:29 am

From Fleas article on the Tsunami again

He makes one big mistake – he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case. When you read Genesis One notice the repeated refrain, 'And God say that it was good'. God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment. That is why, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, the whole creation 'groans as in the pangs of childbirth'. We are faced with two choices – either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation.

Care to explain this? I've been waiting a very long time to hear you explain this in light of the fact natural disasters happened long before mankind appeared and brought "sin" into creation. Bet you ignore this serious chalenge.

Where does the origin of species say to kill people?
Does the bible glory in killing people?
Did god say to kill people who do not share your beliefs?
Were the crusades and inquisitions not a result of christianity etc?
Does calling the pope the antichrist lead to hatred?

Atheism is an absolutist doctrine. It makes no appeal to the supernatural as far as I know and thus is not a religion per se. But Atheism does claim to have all the answers, and thus it allows for no dissent. It also relies on logical waterproofing in the form of materialistic naturalism, and declares anyone who questions it to be deluded.

News to us. Go on give us one tiny little bit of evidence, go on - pretty please.

Christianity has no answers because it is a belief system that is based in absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

When the Cristians first arrived in the Americas to kill and exploit the natives (oh no, more capitalism), why did they not find Christian natives? Surely you would expect this if christianity is not a meme. personally, I think Paul lied when he wrote Romans 10:18 "But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world"
Wonder how many Korean christians have christian families - its not as if they suddenly became christian with out inheriting it from another culture.

487. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #77039 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 9:19 am

The linkage of science and capitalism (aka Monsanto) is profoundly disturbing - and all true lovers of science and knowledge should be on their guard.

Cough - Catholic church, cough Benny Hinn etc ... And your point is?

488. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77004 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 6:29 am

but the Israelites crossed it. There was a path or route from one side to the other.

The verse says they went to the midst of the sea, not through it on a path.

But, we are told that the Isrealites went through the midst of the sea

Ex14:16But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

489. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76995 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 5:13 am

Exodus 14:23 And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.

Had the sea not retreated, so the lad they were on was still in the midst of the sea - not a path through it in any real sense

490. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76987 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 3:09 am

I guess you could, after all it is a question of interpretation of past events

Erm No, as I said, it's about testing - just repeating your mantra doesnt make it true.

I'm still waiting for an example of a moral absolute here as well as comments on opsin genes, dinosaurs etc.

Do you believe Blasphemy and homosexuality are immoral? Do you think it is ever right to indulge in genocide?

Well, the case is truly rested here! How on earth can this not be understood. Tell us you are joking!

He clearly didnt understand natural selection the last time he was here, but we were apparently still wrong. To quote him:

"Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1672,Row-Brews-Over-DUP-Call-for-Schools-to-Teach-Creationism,Ulster-Star#73194

491. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76976 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 2:25 am

I don't pretend to understand this. Perhaps you could be a little clearer?

The Cambrian period was roughly 500 million years ago. There are fossils recorded in the rocks, but no veretebrates. If you find a vertebrate fossil in these rocks, evolution is screwed. It is so easily refuted, but in 150+ years of looking, nobody has.

You might like to consider that the Grand Canyon was carved out after the flood.

You might like to present some real evidece to back up that claim otherwise we can just as easily claim a bunch of space monkeys did it.

Your whale article was of its usual low standard - nothing on taphonomy and sufficiently vague to mislead.

Your comments entirely miss the point. I've had sufficient experience of life to know that people become hardened and consciences deadened. Notwithstanding that, it is still true that presented with the chance of doing wrong without being caught many people do experience a pang of conscience. My question is how does evolution explain that? Perhaps you can explain.

Amazingly, this paragraph argues againt itself here. If some folk dont, then the claim of a moral absolute is false. How about reciprocation as a mechanism - go look it up if you are interested - I generally find you are not.
Why do you think evolution can't explain it?

You confuse morality and behaviour.

No, morally he was different. Why do drugs and alcohol make people behave differently?

492. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76871 by BillySands on October 7, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Billy you strain at gnats and swallow a camel. God bless you.

I'm sure that makes sense in the privacy of your own mind

the chemicals in glucose or sucrose.

Would these chemicals be glucose and sucrose?

When scientists do examine rocks, fossils etc they are working in the present and interpreting data according their framework of beliefs

Erm, no, proper ones look at evidence and make testable predictions like - if evolution is false, we will find cambrian rabbits - truth is there are not even any cambrian vertebrates. Your move devolved. Why do you not like the principle of uniformitarianism? please cite evidence.

One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water (of a different magnitude).

So lets get this right, the flood lays down all these neat sediments (with no rabbits, whales or eagles), then a deluge comes along and carves out the canyon - how? its already under water.

But given the opportunity to commit the 'perfect crime' why do we still feel guilt?

. I'm guessing you interviewed exactly zero criminal masterminds here. I met quite a few folk when I did some work with homeless people, and let me tell you, guilt doesn't come in to it that often. I met people who had no problem with the use of violence or sending their girlfriend out to work as a prostitute while they went shop lifting. One of my friends who works in the Strathclyde police forensic lab can give you some even worse stories. Accuracy is not your strong point, is it?

By contrast our moral reactions have nothing to do with our chemistry.

Really? Heard of Phineas Gague? He dammaged part of his brain and changed completely. Ther is plenty of evidence out there showing that brain lesions affect moral behaviour. Why dont you use some facts instead of making ignorant claims. Is neuroscience you specialist field? If not, why make claims that chemistry cant explain behaviour?
I'm guessing it is becaus ignoring facts allows you to carry on believing your wierd views.

493. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76635 by BillySands on October 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Devolved, give examples of moral absolutes. Seen the monkeys with a sense of justice thread? http://richarddawkins.net/article,1676,Monkeys-show-sense-of-justice,Dr-David-Whitehouse-BBC
ain't evolution a bitch to creationists?

Can you have un-sweet sugar?

What part of sweetness is not an inherant property of sugar did you not understand? It is the perception of sugar that tastes sweet. It could just as easily have been bitter.

Take some syrup and saturate it with sugar, then eat it and wash it down with mars bar ice cream, then drink a cup of tea with two sugars. Suddenly that sugar does not taste so sweet

494. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76555 by BillySands on October 6, 2007 at 8:33 am

I've just heard RD say that people do terrible things "in the name of religion".

You can say that again:

Why should you all be allowed to live when my new God says you are put to death? Will you answer my questions? Why should I not put you all to death?

Wonder why wee flea is not challenging him to a razor fight. He's always having a go at RD for not taking on Islam. Go on David, offer him a square go - CLUCK CLUCK.

Talking of Chickens, what about those ones with teeth Devolved. Found any pesky dinosaurs or paleozoic humans?

As regards Stalin – read Montefiore's Young Stalin – which describes in detail his conversion to atheism through reading and being enlightened by the Origin of the Species

Ah, you forgot to mention the god botheresgot to him first, and where in "the origin" does it say

"After Joshua died, the Israelites asked the LORD, "Which tribe should attack the Canaanites first?" The LORD answered, "Judah, for I have given them victory over the land." The leaders of Judah said to their relatives from the tribe of Simeon, "Join with us to fight against the Canaanites living in the territory allotted to us. Then we will help you conquer your territory." So the men of Simeon went with Judah. When the men of Judah attacked, the LORD gave them victory over the Canaanites and Perizzites, and they killed ten thousand enemy warriors at the town of Bezek. While at Bezek they encountered King Adoni-bezek and fought against him, and the Canaanites and Perizzites were defeated. Adoni-bezek escaped, but the Israelites soon captured him and cut off his thumbs and big toes. Adoni-bezek said, "I once had seventy kings with thumbs and big toes cut off, eating scraps from under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them." They took him to Jerusalem, and he died there. The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire." Oops thats not "the origin", its actually Judges 1:1-8

Or where does it say ""Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." Oh, sorry, that's the bible again isnt it (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

Heard of the christian terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph

How about you actually provide evidence for god's existence, or demonstrate how the bible allegedly supports evolution - you could even criticize devolved. Or ar you just cyincally going to exploit the suffering of others again to pathetically try and have a go at atheists again?

495. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76336 by BillySands on October 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

I think the mormons were taking a wizz when religions were being handed out :-)

496. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76271 by BillySands on October 5, 2007 at 9:43 am

Did "God" have a covenant with Assyria, like with Israel, so that they repented and went back to obeying said covenant?

Good point! In fact, the NT is not particularly concerned with people out with the covenant

Mark

The god of the OT does demand a particular way of behaving, and there are punishment for not doing so. "Sin" will sever that relationship. Whereas, the NT god accepts sinners despite their sinful nature. (deut 28:15-68). God puishes the people and when he decides they have had enough, he forgives them (eg Isaiah:40:3

"Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins")

The NT god is one of grace eg Eph 2:8 "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. 9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it."

Note the requrement for foreigners to behave in accordance with the covenant Isaiah 56:6 "I will also bless the foreigners who commit themselves to the Lord,who serve him and love his name,who worship him and do not desecrate the Sabbath day of rest,and who hold fast to my covenant, where as as mentioned earlier, Paulsays that such things are no longer important.

lee
I do find it absurd that a putative creator of the universe would be interested in one species on this pale blue dot.

Good point epeeist God is a terrible blogger

497. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76225 by BillySands on October 5, 2007 at 6:03 am

sgr79,

You could try the skeptics annotated Koran for starters http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

Although it doesnt actually compare, it highlights some of the nastier verses

498. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76209 by BillySands on October 5, 2007 at 4:41 am

Interesting link Philip

499. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76206 by BillySands on October 5, 2007 at 4:24 am

steveroot,

You remind me of another problem here, teeth generally regrow in children (if they have any), so to knock out an adult's tooth as a punishment is not an equivalent interms of loss. The punishment then becomes disproportionately greater than the loss.

500. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76191 by BillySands on October 5, 2007 at 2:36 am

Hi Mark,
Dont think I'm able to respond to everything today.
Maybe the verse from Romans was a poor example, although, in the temporal context of the situation, Paul is talking to an audience that contains Jewish converts who are confused about the new system where pork is now allowed, circumcision is no longer required, and apparently it is now OK to break the sabbath (what other interprertation can there be of one special day to this audience that contains ex - jews), so there clearly is a difference in the teachings.

"the children of Israel, … throughout their generations" (vv 13,16)......

Note, there are no conditions or exceptions added to this law. We could interpret the children of israel as all followers, however, here is an example of a "child of Israel" saying that it is OK to break the sabbath

Matt 12"1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?"


eye for eye

Before going into the detail, I see you quoted Exodus 21:23. But that in context has a particular application, covering injury to a baby born because its mother is hurt by men in a fight. I believe the context Jesus is primarily refering to is

Unfortunately, prematurely born babies generally dont have teeth, so it is hardly likely to apply to them, and jesus was using it as a general law about revenge in his teaching.

The idea of an eye for an eye, paying like for like is actually evident in an other scenario in EX 21 12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

I think we can conclude that it was a fairly general law

Surely you agree a life for a life is something Jesus was totally against, but the OT law endorses it in many places.

In what Jesus says, he does not repudiate the law, but asks his disciples to go even beyond what the law permits:

Actually, the law is supposedly perfect: Psalm 19:7The law of the lord is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."

Ify you are claiming that there is a way other than the law, then the law cannot be perfect.
Got to go, I may be able to post more later