51. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161209 by Artful_Dodger on April 15, 2008 at 3:16 am

Interesting discussion. I just hope that Dawkins will be equally willing to engage in a similar way with fellow-scientists who are not atheists.

Dawkins really let the cat out of the bag when he said that his aim was not only to establish the truth of science, but to KILL religion. That immensely unscientific agenda is going to turn out to be counterproductive for Dawkins and his band of new-atheists. Because of this he has already alienated huge numbers of very intelligent people who might be sympathetic with his aim to further scientific knowledge. Most people instinctively know that science and faith are not incompatible with each other, unless they have been hoodwinked into thinking they are either by religious fundamentalists on the one side or by the likes of Dawkins and his cohorts on the other. The effect of Dawkins (mis)using in this way his professorial chair in order to drive through his "faith-eradication" program will drive parents and many educators into their bunkers and make them much more anti-science that they otherwise might have been.

52. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160903 by Artful_Dodger on April 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

If there is not God, Henri Bergson is right. We have no right to inflict our conception of human rights on any other culture. We have no business interfering, laying down the law or accusing. We have no business telling the nazis that what they did to the Jews gypsies and homosexuals was wrong. We have no business ranting about women's rights in Afghanistan, nor for that matter condemning Bush and co for intervening in Afghanistan or in Iraq. In fact we have now grounds for denouncing anyone for anything. If there is no God we are only animals, and there is no more reason for condemning slave traders or mass murderers than there is for locking up lions for killing zebras ... if there is no God!

53. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #158011 by Artful_Dodger on April 10, 2008 at 1:17 am

I would not be so quick to trumpet the triumphs of Swedish secularism. There are many signs of it creaking.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/islamic-law-used-by-secular-swedish.html

After all, "nature abhors a vacuum".

54. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157982 by Artful_Dodger on April 9, 2008 at 11:41 pm

I suggest we fill it with reason, science and free-thinking

That is exactly what the Jacobins set about doing. But as Goya said, "the dream of reason engenders monsters". Reason is a fundamentally good thing. It is what enables us to understand the world around us and to engage in meaningful dialogue with one another. But the kind of reason that regards itself as incompatible with faith, which seeks to drive faith out of the world, is insidious and sinister. When this kind of "reason" (which is actually one of the most fanatical "faiths" imaginable) becomes the foundation for public policy, it is not long before "monsters" begin to materialise. The rationalists among you are at the "I have a dream" stage. If your dream (unlike Martin LK's dream) were ever to translate into policy the result would be tyranny.

55. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157759 by Artful_Dodger on April 9, 2008 at 2:01 pm

it provides us to fill that gap with something much, much better.

Let's not hold our breath!

56. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157743 by Artful_Dodger on April 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Anyone listening to C Hitchens sounding off on Stalin must see how patently absurd his opinions are. Of course Stalin set himself up as a god, and inflicted on the country a regime of hero worship, which was reminiscent of religious worship gone wrong. In that sense the evil that he perpetrated flowed not directly from his absence of a belief in God, but rather from his setting himself up as god. But the question is, where did his setting himself up as god flow from? As Peter Hitchens very incisively pointed out, Stalin's making himself god was a consequence of God having been airbrushed out of the picture. That is where the threat of atheism lies. Not so much in the absence of belief in a transcendent Deity before whom we are accountable as in what that vacuum is filled with.

C Hitchens said at one point that no country that has based its constitution on Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Galileo et al has ever perpetrated the kind of crimes perpetrated by Stalin and company, rooted as they were (supposedly) in Czarist, priest-ridden regimes. A couple of things need to be said about that. In the first place, how could the constitution of a country be based on a cast of names arbitrarily plucked out of the air by Chritopher Hitchens? Secondly, Lenin's Russia was actually based on the writings of Marx and Engles, whose ideas were in turn rooted (as atheists keep telling us) in the Enlightenmnent. And enlightened many of Marx's ideas may have been. The same could be said of Rousseau's and Voltaire's ideas which inspired the Jacobins. The problem comes when someone sets about implementing these "enlightened" ideas. After the French absolutists were got rid of, the revolution became a bloodbath. After the Czars were overthrown it was not long before tyranny set in. Or is Hitchens going to blame the Bourbons for the excesses of the revolution, just as he blames the Czars for the excesses of Stalin. His naivety or wilful ignorance beggars belief!

57. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155433 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 1:34 pm

http://www.eif.co.uk/event/new-europe-should-prefer-new-atheism.html

just in case you are interested

58. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155340 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 10:56 am

Must rush Incredulous, but a quick answer for the time being. Palestinian Jews would not have invented a Messiah who seemed to just give up when what they were expecting was a showdown with the Roman authorities. When he rode into Jerusalem it was ultimately in order to take his place on a Roman gibbet, not to bring thunder and lightning down on the heads of the oppressors. Nor would they have invented someone who claimed to have the authority to forgive people's sins. That was precisely what nearly got him lynched quite early on. It's true that there were other Messiah figures, but they fitted the bill as regards Palestinian expectations of their Messiah. And they raised bands of followers and took on the powers-that-be. Not so Jesus, or he took them on in a way in which no one could have anticipated.

As for the resurrection, it is the most plausible explanation for the empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances of the risen Christ. This was Jesus final and decisive challenge to Caesar. Caesar was the self-proclaimed son of god. The resurrection, attested by the empty tomb which was there for all to see, and Jesus disciples who changed overnight from being a bunch or cowering, disillusioned might-have-beens to one of the most powerful, focused group of revolutionaries the world has ever seen, was God's message to the Romans and everyone else that Caesar was not the son of God. Jesus was.

But this ground has been gone over again and again. I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time and yours by going over it again. So I'm going to get on with the rest of my life.

Cheers

59. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155301 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 10:07 am

What I am trying to find out is how you made your choice - based on what evidence?

Based on a growing awareness of the reality of God, a call. If I still it is because, apart from the inward awareness of this reality, the gospels ring true, Jesus, as reflected in the gospels, could not have been invented, and the bodily resurrection is the most plausible explanation for the events of the Sunday after his burial.

If the resurrection could be SHOWN not to have taken place, the whole thing would fall apart.

60. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155290 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 9:56 am

not so fast Al-rawandi

http://www.uhl.ac/NazarethVillage/NVFDec97.html

61. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155270 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 9:41 am

I know that billions of people say I'm wrong. That either proves that I am nor that I am not. We all have to make choices at the end of the day, and when we make our choice we are excluding all rival options. Going back to Pascal: "nous sommes embarqués". The game has begun and we have no choice but to place our bets.

62. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155264 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 9:36 am

So how do you resolve the question of which God to believe in?

Jesus of Nazareth

63. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155260 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 9:31 am

"I'm going to love God because it's in my best interests to do so." What kind of love is that? Goneril and Regan would have got on very well with our friend Pascal.

Paula, there is a lot of truth in that objection to Pascal's wager. What kind of love is that indeed? And yet, incredibly, God will accept us even on such outrageously self-centred terms! That is what is so incredible about grace! Look at the stories of Jesus' encounters with people from all walks of life in the gospels. They came to him out of their need, and, reading their hearts he accepted them ... but then gave them a lot more than they had "bargained" for, and accepted them only for as long as they were prepared to go the whole hog. A CS Lewis said, we invite God into our lives because we want Him to rearrange the furniture. He comes in, but his intention is to build a palace. After all, He intends to live there himself! Your reference to King Lear is an interesting one in that respect. The point about Regan and Goneril was not that they "loved" their father and submitted to him for selfish reasons, but that they did not love him at all, and had no intention of ever changing their minds. In fact their words were calculated to beguile their gulible father. But God is not king Lear. He will not be beguiled by manipulative intentions. Our need may initially be self-centred, but if we think we can, after making that choice, use God to our own advantage, we are knocking on the wrong door.

Pascal's wager is not a sufficient argument in itself, that is true. Of ourse it begs the question "which God will I bet on?" But it might impress on our minds at least the importance of the question. If, assuming that the odds are even, I have a great deal to gain by choosing rightly and a great deal to lose by choosing wrongly, then at least it might be worth my while investigating the truth claims of the different belief-systems on offer. Of course we can't do deals with God in the Goneril and Regan fashion. If we do ever give in, after exploring these issues, and admit that God is God, it will not be on our own terms.

64. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155211 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:34 am

So, astrology, what's your view on it as a subject?

Irate, maybe that' a question you should ask some of your fellow star-gazers on this forum.

I don't think you can attribute Newton's passion for theology only to the fact that Darwin was not around yet to remind him of the fact that it was not actually intellectually respectable any longer to study such a non-subject. The natural world requires the finest possible minds to engage with it. But not all knowledge, like it or not, is in fact contained within the realm that is scientifically observable.

65. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155194 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:20 am

Incredulous, this is classic Dawkins-speak but it will cut no ice with anyone who actually realises to what extent the Bible has shaped our culture to which science grew out of (bit did not outgrow) a Biblical worldview.

It is typical of Dawkins and certain others her to reduce to a non-subject a discipline which he has no mastery of and no intention to acquire any. "If everything is Biology and Chemistry then you only need to know Biology and Chemistry after all. When we have succeeded in reducing everything to Biology and Chemistry then the fact that we don't know anything else countrs for nothing as there isn't anything else." OK, it's an oversimplfication. But that is the direction we are moving in.

66. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155178 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:12 am

Steve you are the exception (or one of the few) that proves the rule.

67. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155176 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

What's your point scottishgeologist? If the God of the Bible does indeed exist, there might be a very strong case for being prepared to meet him, don't you think? If he does not, not all that much is lost by believing in Him.

68. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155164 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:01 am

faouloki, comments are one thing, sycophantic adulation is another.

69. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155161 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 7:59 am

Dr Benway, I have done ... at least twice. But if theology is a non-subject, then the Bible is hardly a serious enough subject for discussion here, in which case there is nothing that I could possibly say about it which you would consider worth hearing. So in what sense do you want me to "enlighten" you?

70. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155138 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 7:42 am

Well how typical of Lennox to once again ride on the back of Dawkins' success. What a bore.

Beth, what do you know about Dr Lennox? I'll have you know that he does not need Dawkins' success or anyone else's. He is a very well-established mathemetician with many peer-reviewed papers in group theory. Long before Dawkins crossed his path he had acquired science doctorates from both Cambridge and Oxford, including a doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.

Please don't show your absolute and total ignorance by making such pathetically ridiculous comments. Why don't you all cut the "Dawkins is God" crap. Try to weigh up his arguments against those of his opponents a bit more objectively. I've never seen such bowing and scraping as before the name of Richard Dawkins on this site. OK, he's a first class evolutionary biologist who as written some ground-breaking scientific books and papers. But when will you face up to the fact that on theology, Biblical criticism and philosophy he is out of his depth. And TGD was just a long rant under a very irregular, patchy scientific veneer.

Will you bother to listen to Lennox's response in October? Will anyone here? Or have you taken Dawkins' statements as unanswerable ex-catedra pronouncements?

71. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154959 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 3:08 am

Quetzalcoatl, I have answered the question about metaphorical v literal. A question of genres. You don't read poetry literally, and Biblical history is as verifiable/falsifiable as any other history. The presence of the supernatural in a historical account is only a problem if you proceed from an a priori assumption that the supernatural does not exist, and that there is nothing that transcends the physical universe. Once you admit the possibility that there exists that which is not susceptible to empirical, scientific investigation then in principle you cannot rule out the possibility of this Transcendent Entity, supposing her/him/it to be intelligent, intervening in the natural world when (s)he/it so chooses.

I have argued elsewhere that the cardinal difficulty for materialists is that "the idea", concepts, thoughts, memories etc. can be shown to exist independently of "the matter" (the brain) that supports them, just as an image is independent of the canvas and the oils that are used to convey it, or a word is independent of the ink that is used to give it form.

72. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154738 by Artful_Dodger on April 3, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Yeah guys, I can very well understand why you would not like to see RD sharing a public platform with John Lennox on home turf. After the scalding Dawkins got the last time your reactions to Robertson are just par for the course. I wouldn't have expected a different reaction from you.

73. Beware the Believers

Comment #151818 by Artful_Dodger on March 29, 2008 at 1:24 pm

F*** the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass b***s,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bull***, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

This is much more the kind of "humour" I've grown used to from the atheist community. I really don't understand how you can't see that Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett are being mercilessly lampooned in this video. You only have to listen to how the self-ridiculing refrain is repeated again and again. This completely cuts the bottom out of any pro-evolution "satirising" of the opposing position - the references to the Scopes and Wilberforce myths and so on. It's a classic double-take. The subtelty of it has clearly escaped you. You're more comfortable with the other kind of stuff.

74. Beware the Believers

Comment #151604 by Artful_Dodger on March 29, 2008 at 3:50 am

Fantastic! The funniest piss-take I've seen for ages! Well done, and thanks for posting it.

75. Fleabytes

Comment #148107 by Artful_Dodger on March 22, 2008 at 5:11 am

Re "metaphorical" v "Literal" and the difference between the two, one knows by being familiar with the genre, and by not mistaking one genre for another. The book of Job does not read like history, it reads like epic poetry. Anyone who is familiar with epic poetry will be guarded against the danger (a minor danger mind you) of taking it as a historical biographical account of the life of a man called Job.

The books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Esther read like history - and the events can be substantiated in many cases by reference to contemporary Mesopotamian (for example) historiography.

76. Fleabytes

Comment #147872 by Artful_Dodger on March 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Bonzai, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that there was not a specific act of rebellion on the part of a single human pair, and that the human race descends from that pair. There was an explicit command from God which was wilfully disobeyed. What it is not necessary to believe is that this happened in a garden called Eden or that it took the form of humans taking a orbidden fruit in response to being incited by a literal serpent.


As regards origins, human beings (homo sapiens sapiens) clearly coexisted with other humanoids. Exactly what the nature of our genetic compatibility with these species was is still up for grabs.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/originman.html

what's wrong with setting ourselves as arbiters of our affairs?

History is littered with examples. Where do you want me to start? Which failed utopia would you like me to refer you to?

77. Fleabytes

Comment #147863 by Artful_Dodger on March 21, 2008 at 12:59 pm

, he's missing your prayers, genuflecting and obedience

Just as your Holy Quartet might be missing yours :-)

78. Fleabytes

Comment #147853 by Artful_Dodger on March 21, 2008 at 12:32 pm

It's like a gathering of the clueless.

This is exactly what I have often thought about this thread. I couldn't have put it better myself!

Hi Artful. Are you ready to give, as promised, the method by which we can distinguish metaphorical from non-metaphorical sections of holy books?

Well Steve I could. But then again I'm not sure that there would be much point as your mind already seems made up.

Suffice it to say that a great deal of Old Testament Scripture is couched in poetic language. Metaphor abounds in Biblical poetry just as it abounds in every other kind of poetry. The opening chapters of Genesis can be read as epic poetry. They portray the creation of the universe and of mankind within it almost like a symphony. The story of the garden of Eden can be poetical and symbolic with regard to its detail (the Garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, and so forth) and yet absolutely true with regard to it showing that humankind chose, collectively to rebel against God, and every human being since then succumbs to the temptation to set him/herself up as sole arbiter of their destinies, turning their backs on their Creator. The rest of the book of Genesis, and the rest of the Bible itself, shows (sometimes metaphorically, sometimes literally, always very vividly) how this attitude of rebellion plays itself out in human affairs, and how God has at different times intervened to bring us back to our senses. How much more metaphorical detail do you need? How much more explanation of exactly what is literal and what is metaphorical? Can some events not be both at the same time? Many literal historical events down through the ages have taken on a significance which is larger than the events themselves, and in that sense can be viewed as literally enacted metaphors. Events like the Garden of Eden, the flood, the exodus, the exile fall into that category. So too do the evets that some of us are conmemorating and celebrating during this Easter weekend. But why don't yo read the text or yourself with as open a mind as possible and decide for yourself what might be intended as metaphors for truths that are more important than the question of whether or not the details are literally true, and what must be intended to be taken literally, together with all the metaphorical significance that the events might also have.

79. Fleabytes

Comment #147839 by Artful_Dodger on March 21, 2008 at 12:03 pm

The ultimate irony

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (Robert Jastrow)

Some food for thought :)

80. Fleabytes

Comment #137593 by Artful_Dodger on March 3, 2008 at 8:34 am

Fine Steve, but is this the right thread for it?

81. Fleabytes

Comment #137592 by Artful_Dodger on March 3, 2008 at 8:32 am

What on earth could a religious person contribute to a useful discussion of religion that Richard Dawkins couldn't? Why would anyone want to hear less Dawkins for their money, and adulterate the learning experience with the mind-rotting silliness of theistic drivel?

Thought as much. Par for the course! It's just going to be a face-to-face extension of the richarddawkins.net hate-fest. It'll be like Guy Fawkes night. "Let's roast a few Christians in their absence". You guys are so good at that. Maybe not so confident when required to challenge far from mind-rotting arguments from people like John Lennox and William Lane Craig. Anyway, have a great "conversation".

82. Fleabytes

Comment #137577 by Artful_Dodger on March 3, 2008 at 8:00 am

Paula, as the topic of the event is going to be both science and religion, would it not be better to chair a debate of some kind rather than only a conversation with Dawkins? In that way your audience would have a chance to interact not with Dawkins alone and religous people as he has described them to be, but with Dawkins and directly with one of the said religious people (who should obviously also be a scientist). This would obviate the danger of strawmen being constructed out of the air and then demolished by a rhetorical flourish or a string of clichés. Given the invective which Robertson (deservedly so or not) has incurred on this site he would probably not be the man for the job. So in the absence of a feisty Scot I would suggest a feisty (Scots-)Irishman - namely Dr John Lennox. Having said that he is more likely than not to be otherwise engaged. In that case I would suggest a similar exchange in some part of the British Isles at a time that would suit both scholars.

I know that "conversations" of the kind that you will be chairing are not uncommon in both Christian and atheist circles. But I think that direct representation of the other side is always desirable where possible. Otherwise it's not really fair to the audience, or, needless to say, to the other side.

Just a suggestion. In any event, wheter or not a debate is possible, I am sure you will do a wonderful job as moderator, and I look forward to seeing it online.

83. Fleabytes

Comment #135754 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 8:52 am

Anna, I take your point. I am sure that DR did not mean to imply that atheists do not care about human suffering or are incapable of empathy. I take his words to mean that when they care, when they empathise they do so in spite of and not because of their materialistic world view. The point is that humanism is not rooted in materialism but, in fact, in theism. I know that that will seem to be a sweeping statement. Nevertheless, many atheists have been as aware of this as Christians are (or should be). Nietzsche slammed atheists for dispensing with God but clinging to Christian morality which insisted on the weak and vulnerable being viewed with compassion and helped rather than despised. I have to rush so I can't go into this in any more depth right now. But if you are interested we can discuss it later. If your mind is already made up that atheism leads to humanism, then we'll leave it there.

84. Fleabytes

Comment #135733 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 8:38 am

I will post an answer on Biblical metaphors Steve. Haven't got time right now.

Al-rawandi, I did not say RD was nasty. I referred to his calling Robertson nasty.

I did not call all of you nasty. I said that many of the posts on the site have vastly outdone in nastiness anything that DR has said. Please don't put words in my mouth.

85. Fleabytes

Comment #135708 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 8:23 am

chill out and take a nap Al. I have other things to do. My life does not revolve around posting on this site.

86. Fleabytes

Comment #135698 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 8:08 am

Ok Epeeist. That is pretty abusive stuf and I am appalled by it, especially considering that it comes from "Christians". It is very un-Christlike. There is absolutely no justification for it.

Having said that, can you show me where David Robertson spoken in this kind of way? I defy you to.

87. Fleabytes

Comment #135691 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 7:59 am

No offense taken Tyler. I merely pointed out your play on the "lie" theme. Calling someone a liar might be construed as abuse, but I'm not going to press the point. As I say, it drew a smile, as have a lot of other comments on the thread which have been just as substance-free.

Steve, all I was saying with these references is that other posters here have vastly outdone Robertson when it comes to abuse. I'm not as brittle as some people have taken me to be. In fact my point is that theists posting here have, if anything, proven less brittle than many of your fellow atheists, if references to Robertson's supposed nastiness are anything to go by!

88. Fleabytes

Comment #135683 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 7:51 am

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Don't you understand what a metaphor is? Or do you think that when the Bible says that the trees and mountains "clap their hands" that Christians take that literally too? Maybe some do, but that's their problem. A lot of Christians don't understand what metaphor is either.

By the way, what timedoes the sun rise in your part of the world? Sorry I should have said "at what time does the sun become visible due to the earth turning on its axis?"

89. Fleabytes

Comment #135663 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 7:35 am

Ana, thank you for your words. There's a lot of truth in what you say. I hope you realise (as you seem to) that this cuts both ways. Nevertheless, you will have to agree with me that much more "nastiness" has been aimed at David Robertson than has been used by him - as least from what I have seen.

You have asked for examples of where David has been particularly nasty. Some of the previous posters have provided examples

Does parodying Dawkins' conception of humans resulting from natural selection as "meat machines" really constitute "nastiness" as one poster seemed to think? Do constant references to "Dawkins' followers" constitute "nastiness"? Are atheists really unable to handle this degree of taunting without flying off the handle? I myself (I confess) have been a good deal more aggressive and sarcastic towards atheists than this. Yet I have not been slammed (I admit) is fiercely as Robertson has. Maybe he is just more forthright in stating his beliefs, and he had the unforgiveable audacity to take RD on in a book!

What about theists constantly being called f***wits, faith-heads, babies suckling at the tit of ignorance ...? and being told to f*** off, bugger off and the like? Some abuse draws a smile. (eg Tyler's recent post with my typo). But this kind of stuff is just inane. It really is no wonder that theists don't tend to hang around here for long - which suits most of you perfectly!

90. Fleabytes

Comment #135632 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 6:56 am

Al-rawandi, where does the OT say the earth is flat? It says nothing of the sort. Nor does it say that the earth is the centr of the universe. The ancient Greek Ptolomy was the first to put about the idea that the earth was the centre. There is nothing in the cosmology of the Bible that makes it incompatible with modern astronomy.

91. Fleabytes

Comment #135622 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 6:41 am

Scottishgeologist, along with many believers I don't agree with Spurgeon on this point.

Along with many other Christians I have no problem with theistic evolution, and I do not agree that it drives a coach and horses through the teaching on the Fall. The story of Adam and Eve could be a story, a lierary creation, which illustrates the collective attitude of rebellion against God that humankind fell into with regard to God. Nowadays there are lots of stories and plays which illustrate aspects of human nature, where the characters resonate with a significance that transcendes themselves. I'm not saying that the story is not true. But it may not be true in a literal historical sense. Whether it is true in this sense or not, it is also true in a sense that is much more important than the literal historicity of all the details. The story of Adam and Eve and the talking serpent are very powerful images, symbols of the state that men and women ar in with respect to their Creator. This figurative Adam (=man) is later mirrored by Christ who also faced temptation but did not fall, and was therefore able to represent and embody redeemed humanity. I know that David's correspondent would not agree with me here and would call me a heretic. That does not worry me. Fortunately there are people like David around who are able to take on board less literalist interpretations of the book of Genesis.

92. Fleabytes

Comment #135601 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 6:10 am

Paula, what Robertson condemns as "heresy" is the unbiblical cookie cutter approach to what constitutes genuine Christianity, the approach that writes off Stott and others as "heretics" because they seem "unorthodox". Robertson is actually arguing for a more open, more tolerant and more humble approach which accepts disagreement over certain negotiable issues in the interests of Christian unity. There are non-negotiables but belief in a literal Adam and Eve and garden of Eden, or an acceptance of pre-Adamic humanity are not among them, contrary to what S seems to believe. Robertson clearly wants a more open Free Church of Scotland, without prejuduice to the essentials of the gospel.

I'm surprised that you do not see this in the correspondence.

93. Fleabytes

Comment #135593 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 5:52 am

Philip, can you show me some evidence of what you regard as his nastiness? Or do I have to trawl through his posts for it. If the letter Paula put in here is supposed to be a measure of his unpleasantness I might find it a lot harder to come up with other examples of it than it obviously is for you guys to.

By the way, if I leave it will not be on David's account. Would you really say that he has been nastier than some of the other people here have been to him?

94. Fleabytes

Comment #135575 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 5:26 am

Relax Quetzalcoatl. I'm off.

95. Fleabytes

Comment #135569 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 5:20 am

Paula, I have reread the letter. Show me one example of anything objectionable in either the content or the delivery! If that is supposed to be an example of unpleasantness you need to take a reality check. You also need to look at the kind of language that has been addressed to other theists who have ventured onto this site. Or is it that he doesn't have the right to disagree with his fellow-Christians? What sort of opinion do you have of Christians - that they are all supposed to believe the same thing about everything? that they can't object to what other Christians are doing or saying? As it happens I think Robertson was completely on target in the letter you put in here. Like him I am really saddened by how some thoughtful Christians with a heart for God are written off as heretics in pharasaical fashion because they don't slot into the reformed or evangelical mould. But that is an inter-nicene issue, just as you have your inter-nicene disputes with fellow-atheists.

96. Fleabytes

Comment #135560 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 5:06 am

you guys really do get pissed off when someone from that strange "fantasy (for you) world" of belief in God wanders into your unholy huddle. You have shown that you are incapable of engaging with arguments that you disagree with, and go straight for the throat of those who hold them. Don't worry, I won't be posting much here. I have better things to do with my time. I assure you that there are sites (atheist and theist) where Christians engage with atheists and agnostics in meaningful, respectful debate. This, by a long stretch, is not one of them.

97. Fleabytes

Comment #135555 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 4:59 am

Brian can you show me where he has "vomitted hate and bile" on this site? You say belief in God is not just a cute anachronism but a danger to us today. You say he's a vicious person BECAUSE of his belief. Likewise presumably in your book everone who believes in God is a icious person and a threat. Can I ask you how you would set about putting that situation to rights if you had the power to do so? After all, we don't want our streets crawling with thousands of threats to our health and safety, do we?

98. Fleabytes

Comment #135550 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 4:51 am

Looks like I was too late!

99. Fleabytes

Comment #135547 by Artful_Dodger on February 29, 2008 at 4:47 am

I was not intending to post again on this site but I think that Paula's last post deserves a contribution from someone who is not going to see every word uttered by David Robertson as a reason to tear him to pieces.

In the first place these two letters are out of place on a thread dealing with Robertson's response to Richard Dawkins, and their having been posted here is clear evidence that the responses to him have become pure ad hominem attacks. Otherwise why on earth would something be posted where references to Dawkins' opinions are conspicuous by their absence?

Secondly, I am not sure that it is ethical to lift correspondence from another site as fuel for this very different fire. Imagine a letter by Hitchens on the subject of the War on Terror, and a response to it, being used on a thread dealing with evolution on this site, to show to what extent Hitchens despises the weaklings who balk at the invasion of Iraq, and therefore that his opinions concerning evolution are not to be trusted.

Thirdly, if Robertson's letter is read objectively one cannot fail to be impressed, not by how he leaps for the jugular, but by how fair-minded and irenic the man is. The problem is that even a normally cool head like Paula's has become incapable of reading anything the man says objectively. I guess his being called nasty by none other than the great Dawkins himself has driven the wedge even deeper between Dawkins' followers and their capacity for objective appraisal.

100. Fleabytes

Comment #131088 by Artful_Dodger on February 22, 2008 at 12:06 am

In my view the treatment that Robertson has received on this site is absolutely despicable and unworthy of a community of people who pride themselves in their recognition and their use of level-headed rational discourse. With every response you deliver to his posts you are confirming the truth of his complaint that you are incapable of debate. This has been the experience of ADH, of myself, of the Bishop and of any other theist poster who has ventured onto this site and tried to represent a theist perspective. There are exceptions to this rule of course, but the knee-jerk hate-speech massively outweighs reasoned attempts at dialogue. You can hardly be surprised that theists who post her end up deciding that it isn't worth it! Or do you imagine that it is because of the sheer unanswerable force of your arguments? So for my part I've had it as far as this site is concerned. I assure you that you won't have to engage many theists on this site. This particular roost is yours to rule. On with your smug, self satisfied flea-swatting. As you rarely take your "arguments" into any other less congenial arenas it will be a cake walk for you.