1101. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35136 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 10:15 am

Spaghettimonster

My request for evidence is open to the interpertation of what weefree himself calls evidence. Were he to present it, we could then scrutinise how good or otherwise it is.

So I must ask….? Am I as delusional as those who believe in God; or perhaps I'm a little less delusional?

Of course you're not as delusional - you are not making an unjustifyable leap, and if you view yourself as les delusionl, then you still hold a more rational view than theists.

1102. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35123 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 9:25 am

newathiest

Newatheist – welcome to the Brave New World of fundamentalist atheism where people never talk to 'trolls' (that is those who disagree with them or can out argue them) and where the story has already ended.

Notice the love David (weefree) shows those who disagree with him and his reluctance to give his best evidence for God - surely an evangelists wet dream! The truth is if you have read any of his stuff (and lots of people here have - how odd that a minister should lie!) his evidence is the sound of the sea and the sound of the singing of psalm making im realise that god was the only explanation for beauty - hmmm - he appears to be mad and angry at atheists. Immagine for some bizzare moment he is correct. He is helping people lose their faith - Jesus said that for such people it would be better for them that they have a mill stone tied round their neck and thrown in a pond than face gods anger at what they have done. I wouldnt worry for hom though, he will have all etenity to work out a way of learning to breathe underwater

1103. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35116 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 8:56 am

SG Thanks for putting a horrible image of Winston's c*m face as he wacks off onto his microscope slide in my mind - Im going to have to look through the Ann Summers catalogue to push the disturbing image out of my head

1104. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35106 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 8:09 am

Hey
David, I challenged you to provide your best evidence for the existance of God. I'm still waiting!

Who ever said science had all the answers. Dawkins for one didn't. Is it really reasonable to assume the supernatural exists when you have no evidence for it. Face it avid, you inherited the Christian meme, you dont believe because of any evidence - if you do, supply some - nice to see you are still calling those who are not deluded fundamentalists - very big and clever of you. Is that all you have in your arsenal in defense of theism. Tell me, I know someone who was abused by a church elder (her father) Would it be appropriate of me to come back on your site and refer to every one on it as an incestuous kiddie fiddler?
Ah, but you would just delete them wouldn't you! Even if you get put on a troll thread, you still are allowed to post here - Double standards David! you dont give to other what you expect yourself.
Try dropping the stereo types. I like the fact that you are showing yourself up, but it is getting soooooo boringly repetetive

1105. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35101 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 7:56 am

Hi Mark, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you sure you mean daniel 12? although it would appear so.

1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

I dont see the disagreement. We both agree the bible says that god and bad will both be resurrected. My point is that even the first ressurection - that of the "good" occurs after the return of Jesus, so neither the good or the bad (the priest in this instance) can ever see jesus return. The logical conclusion is that jesus meant his return was to occur shortly after his death. Eitherway, the prophecy has to fail. If you accept jesus meant an early return, it failed. If you assert that it is yet to be fulfilled, then the events of revelation prevent this from happening, so it can not be fulfilled - otherwise Revelation is wrong - eitherway something is wrong. The most plausable interpretation is that the original prophecy is wrong. I don't think it is reasonable to conclude otherwise. Do you see my point? By saying it needs more interpretation, you are confirming what others have said here that interpretation of prophecy is subjective. It is not allways clear. Therefore it is not strong evidence. We have to remember that this is supposedly the word of the all knowing creator of the universe, but he is not able to make himself crystal clear (actually the cyrus "prophecy" isaiah 42 is crystal clear - why aren't they all?) If he wanted us to know him why would he make it so difficult? You are after all arguening that your faith is based in reason, so it should be obvious if that were true (dont get big headed now, but you are the only theist on this site who actually tries to provide something testable:-) )and it is refreshing, but I do feel you see it the way you want to see it because of your faith. Are these the arguements that made you believe, or do you believe them because you already have faith?

Did I ever ask you what it would take to make you not believe?

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree though. It's sunny, I should be having my afternoon tea outside (i'm not addicted)

1106. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35090 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 7:14 am

Mark,
I was not meaning to imply that there was no resurrection of the "unjust". I was pointing out that this is the first resurrection. Therefore, the "unjust" must be resurrected after this - which is after the return - which they would be unable to see.
Would you agree that Daniel 12 is also incredibly vague, and that the end of the daily sacrifice could refer to Antiochus IV banning it and the abomination could easily refer to his practice of sacrificing pigs to Zeus in the temple?

1107. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35069 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 6:04 am

Hi Mark I knew I could Taunt (forgive the pun) you into making your own prophecy fail (all in good humour :-) ).

Hovever, the problem with the prophecy is that if yo read revelation, the first resurrection (the good guys) happens after the return, so the preist can hardly see jesus returning on the clouds - he has already returned. I think you are going way beyond the justification of the text here. There are many other werses that hint at an early return. eg Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."
There are others i can fish out later if need be

incidentally, Matthew 12:40 says jesus will rise again after 3 days and nights. He was buried late friday and had risen by early sunday. Also, in Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." This could not be possible if he was in the bowels of the earth. This suggests that gospel accounts are far from acurate representations of things alledged to have happened.

1108. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35047 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 4:47 am

I agree with newatheist here. The trolls are tools at our disposal to help others break their delusion. The trolls are not interested in an exchange of ideas in an attempt to understad the truth, but they do show up what is wrong with theism, and that helps liberate others. So for those lost sheep it is worth it. As someone else said, if they are here it stops them bothering people on the street.

1109. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35041 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 4:12 am

Got a lot of catching up to do.

For the simplest possible reason - the prophecy was clearly false. In the relevant year, the Aztecs' god did not return. Instead, the white man (who was not Quetzalcoatl) arrived...

In much the same way, Jesus never returned when he said he would (in the lifetime of his generation)
eg Matt 26: 64 Jesus replied, "You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Surely that failed for the same reason above. Mark Can I ask why you say the Aztec prophecy failed but the tyre and second comming didn't. Should the same logic not apply to these as well?

1110. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34948 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Devolved
I have read robertsons letters. I find them exceptionally poor as do many others - he has had his own thread on this site and has been torn to shreds.
Again you are not listening. I had presuppositions as a christian. The overwhelming weight of evidence for evolution was something I was convinced in as a christian. I am now open minded and lack those christian presuppositions, so drop the amateur psychology. Evolution is testable. You can make predictions - and they are confirmed. For example, we have one less pair of chromosomes than other primate species. How do we explain this? We can hypothesise that there could have been a fusion of two chromosomes in our recent past. We can test this by sequencing them. Chromosomes only have areas called telomeres on there ends. It turns out human chromosome 2 has internal telomeric sequences - hence 2 chromosomes fused to form no. 2 If the hypothesis failed we would have no alternative other than to reject it. Where is the preconception here.

The problem also is that you do not consider the supernatural to be meerly a possibility (as any honest atheist will agree) you make a leap that you cant justify and assert that it is THE ultimate explanation for everything. Infact, evolution works very well with out any need for the supernatural.

1111. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34941 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm

"Can I be blamed if I lack his unwarranted confidence in the scientific community that gave us such intellectual beauties as spontaneous generation and Piltdown man?"

Truely Bizzaro and well rebutted already. It is amazing that Trolls forget that the christians gave us the flat fixed earth at the centre of creation. So convinced were they that they threatened to execute gallileo.

As for reasonable faith - what evidence for the supernatural? i have never even heard anyone justify the leap from natural to supernatural thinking other than "well you cant rule it out" then they claim it is not testable - very rational - NOT! Most of these trolls concentrate on things that they dont understand or cant explain and hold this up as evidence that there must be something else. How is an inability of a limited intellect ever evidence that no physical explanation can ever be produced? (actually, usually they just deny reasonable explanations like evolution). Basically all they have is a personal opinion that reeks with the unjustifiable presupposition that rational explanation can never explain the issue in question. Scientific models are testable, supernatural ones (apparently) are not. So by definition, naturalism is the only reasonable position of the two. Not that that will make any impact on the closed mind.

Got any fossil Humans living with Dinosaurs?

1112. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34806 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 10:04 am

scottishgeologist

So when it comes to "the truth" only one lot can be right - the others MUST contain some degree of eror or omission.

Your comment remids me of 1 cor:6:2-3 "Don't you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can't you decide even these little things among yourselves? Don't you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life."

Worrying stuff if it were true considering even Paul is having a go at them for not being able to decide things amongst themselves.

1113. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34785 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 8:37 am

Go on weefree Give us your best evidence of the existence of god then - but only do so if you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong and will not run away if micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14 or quirinius are mentioned. One other rule, no ad homenim or branding people fundamentalists - can you do that? And if you do think there is something wrong with rejecting the likes of Micah 5:2, try explaining why - dont throw accusations!

1114. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34736 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 3:11 am

Since Winston is a Jew, I wonder how he explains the religions of those who do not follow his God - a one that proclaims to be the only one. Does he somehow think they are not deluded? or is he just pissed off because his belief in his one true God fits the delusion tag too. I think he is setting up a straw man arguement here that scientists think science is the absolute truth. Most scientists agree that views change with evidence. What is true however is that there is no evidence to believe in the supernatural. By saying some scientists deal with uncertainty with certainty, he is misrepresenting and damaging the public image of science himself. Interestingly, the scientist he seems to have most of a problem with says this in the article

"I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known."

I have some serious confectionary at stake here on the predictability of wee free's response to this (us godless typs know how to party)- wonder if he is going to the talk. Please dont disappoint us David

1115. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34727 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 2:30 am

Devolved
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Regarding lungs (and the rest of evolution) You don't suddenly go from no lungs to lungs. It is a gradual process. I suggest sean b carrol's book the making of the fittest for explanations and evidence on how "information" increases. You can also radically change body shape by altering or changing the expression of HOX genes - go look them up! There is one gene (Alx-4)that when part is lost in dogs gives them a whole new claw - altered "information" - again, another example of loss of information causing change, so please drop this you need more information to increase complexity fallacy.
I have to agree with everyone else her, you dont understand what you are talking about. Babies are not copies of their parents. Go read some proper books and then come back. I also doubt that you ever believed in evolution. I certainly did when I was a christian - as do many christians, so please also drop the preconception fallacy as well. Go check the ken miller video on this site - he is a catholic and really hates intelligent design theory. Simon conway morris (anglican) and your friend Behe also believes in evolution, only behe erroneously thinks some things are too complex to have evolved - Ken Miller rips this idea appart. So, now we have disposed of preconceptions, are you going to give Richard Dawkins your money? - bet you dont.

I dont really see much point continueing this discussion now, because all you are doing is throwing propaganda our way. That CMI article really was bad. Were you actually convinced by it?

1116. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #34598 by BillySands on April 24, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Interesting the pope is so far down the list and Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley appear as a couple (of fannies!)

1117. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34434 by BillySands on April 24, 2007 at 3:51 am

Does antone else find it funny that Devolved claims not to know about pseudogenes but is using them as "evidence" againt evolution. There is so much wrong in that article he links to, but I wont waste my time on it, because he is clearly not interested. He can find articles on pseudogenes on the net if he is really interested.

You can all dodge the question till the cows come home but without scientific evidence of a mechanism for adding new genetic information the evolutionary hypothesis is just that.

He really is not listening is he? By the way, sometimes, one base change is all it takes for the development of drug resistance, and evolution often loses "information" too - such as olfactory receptors, haemoglobin in ice fish, whole biosynthetic pathways in parasites (and the "fossil" genes remain decaying in the genome). He clearly does not understand evolution.
If he is a christian, perhaps he could explain why he believes the bible? It is afterall full of failed prophecies, non prophecies and absurdities, historical inaccuracies, contraditions and bad moral teachings. Oh yeah, and Pagans came up with christianity first. Could it be a "delusion" that allows him to believe this stuff and deny evolution.
He should watch some of the evolution links etc here and make his own mind up and not site Creation ministries International who cleary state on their website that they are predisposed to defend the bible no matter what - nice rational starting point - NOT!
BTW see if you can work out what is wrong with this statement from the begining of the article.

Creationist scientists (including me) generally assume that God would not create purposeless genes in different primates, and that God did not independently disable the same genes in humans and nonhuman primates during the Curse.

In addition to the obvious problems, I wonder how this guy explains the facy that there is a great deal of variation in the human genome (Ask a forensic scientist) or that some of us contain forms of genes that will cause disease - or even predispose us to particular behavioural responses - bad news for those who believe in absolute free will.
I suspect that you haven't even read the article and are just throwing creationist propaganda at us. Why did you not read about processed pseudogenes first? Why did you just ask us to read something you dont understand. Why not approach it from the other way first. It is after all mormal to be familiar with the facts before you attempt to offer an alternative. To help you, go find out about bovine seminal ribonuclease - a a processed and converted pseudogene pseudo gene. (I didn't plan this, but I,ve just noticed that I have duplicated AND mutated my pseudogene - see how easy it is!)

Posiedon (Alan?)

I saw her first :-)

1118. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34106 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 8:39 am

Lee

Too true. I find it bizarre that people come on this site to preach, deny, and say that we all have faith like theirs. The really just show up the irrational nature of their beliefs.

Think I've had enough of the troll too for now

1119. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34096 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 7:57 am

Forgot to deal with these ones

Why does it? Just because I haven't met the person who designed and built my computer doesn't mean that I'm personally ignorant.

The problem here is that you know your computer is designed, but if you didn't, then it would still be an arguement from ignorance. Infact, just in the same way that creationists deny evolution because they have not seen a fish crawl out the water, I could say that since you have not seen the designer of your computer, he does not exist. That's the logic of denial. Hopefully you will realise that this is not a reasonable statement, but thats what those who deny evolution do.
What about snow flakes? they look designed - ah, but we can explain then - not so 500 years ago! See the problem?

That's an amazing statement. Why not? Do you know everything about the subjects you study? Don't you make claims without having 100% of the evidence.

I make claims based on the evidence. There is a difference between my own area (immunology/biochemistry) and argueing for design. We make models based on the evidence, and then test these models, and discard ones that fail. I do not need to know everything about the area to progress it (that woulb be hard if I knew it all. To argue for design, you have to reject all other possibilities, and since you do not know all the facts, you have a very weak starting position. Are you a cosmologist or a quantum physicist? No? then you are argueing for design when you dont even know all the available facts (let alone ALL the facts) Can you not see the deficiency in this line os arguement? The nice thing about science is that every now and then a true genius comes along and explains our ignorance - another reason why arguements for design are unsound.

Have I come across you before by another name?

1120. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34086 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 7:14 am

blockquote
I've never said or believed any such thing. Show me a website that says that please. If you are going to attack my views please attack what I believe and not what someone else has claimed I believe.

I never said that you did. I used it as an example of how someone can get the idea that something is so complex that it has to be designed wrong. Please read carefully

It would be if true.

correct me if I am wrong, but are you not claiming that the universal constants require a creator? And in so doing have not considered that they may have a natural explanation - that you/we do not yet understand (god of the gaps)

Which gaps? The gaps that exists or those that your belief system creates?

And which gaps would they be?

Now explain to me how luck, mutations and natural selection increase genetic information.

How about gene duplication, altered distribution of HOX gene expression, unequal cross over, retroviral and transposon integration, conversion of processed pseudogenes, horizontal gene transfer etc etc. Then natural selection favouring the advantageous ones.
Are you really here to argue a point or just deny evolution because you subscribe to a particular religious view (if so, please state which). Als, are you truely open to the possibility you are wrong? Dinosaurs fossilised with humans will convince me that I am wrong. That is why I don't have a belief system as theists like to assert (incorrectly) What about you?

1121. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34069 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 6:10 am

St Augustine said that unbaptised babies went to hell, so that's at least twice they have changed their mind. Fear of hell is also a good way to control people .... hmmm - nah, surely that's not what religion was all about!

Quetz
I thought all that stuff did happen to you - are you just testing me here? Eagerly awaiting you sending me Jessica Biel your holiness :-)

Devolved
My last comment to you. How on earth is the fact that you personally cannot (or will not) explain something be seen as evidence of design? Those proposing design of things such as the bacterial flagellum were basically saying "wow that's complicated, I cant explain it. It must be god. This is a poor reason to base any hypothesis on. By the way, almost immediately, it was reduced further tho the type III secretory system (bacterial syringe). So much for going "wow". This idea of design appeals to personal ignorance and is nothing more than worshiping the god of the gaps. You can not claim design in the universe unless you know everything about it, which none of us do. But we do progress our understanding and close those gaps.
To sumarise, personal incredulity or current ignorance is not evidence of design. It is only evidence that someone either does not know or understand something. Ask youself why you reject natural explanations and see how reasonable your views are.

1122. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #34064 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 6:03 am

Mark,

Here is Stevie's quote:

Lastly, and slightly off topic, I presume that you believe God made the world for mans benefit. My minor addition to the mass of evidence against this is this - the best way man has to tell time is marking the passage of the sun. Vital for farmers (as most of Gods early creations would have been presumably.) So does he make a system that is perfect for mans needs? Does he make the earth go around the sun in a nice, easy whole number of days? 365? 366? Errr, no. 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds. Making any attempt to create a meaningful calender fraught with problems. Adding a day every four years help, but becuase the year isnt even a decent fraction, being slightly short of 365 and 1/4 days, even this means any calender will degenerate. So much for the anthropic principle. Surely a nice, human brain friendly number would have been better evidence of Gods existence than a few vague prophecies?

He is argueing about the calendar, not the moon, so, no, you have not disproved his point. He is pointing out (i believe) an example of the lack of good design in solar system - something that was supposedly set up to allow man to chart the seasons. All you have done is shown that the moons orbit can be explained rather simply - but that does not prove design ( Lee I may be wrong here, but does the part of the moon facing the earth not change over very long periods of time anyway?)

1123. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34051 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:42 am

Hi lee, It would be nice if he wasn't, but experience has made me cautious. There is a nice non troll guy (Mark) on the God of the bible is no delusion thread though http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg#34050

1124. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #34050 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:40 am

Mark,
I can only say what I interpret Stevie to have meant, and that was his point referring to the usefullness or otherwise of the solar calener, and I agree with that point. For something as important as this, you would imagine that a god creating it for our benefit would have made it consistant. I do not agree that apparent design is evidence for god, and I would imagine that stevie doesn't either. The lack of a sensible design for the calendar however is inconsisdtant with the idea that it was designed - and the oort cloud, that would just be nasty had it been designed

1125. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34046 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:29 am

Logicel and Lee
After your posts, I think he is a troll. He is very dishonest in his selective quoting from Dawkins. If the universe was only a couple of thousand years old with only one planet in it, then the anthropic principle would be more theist friendly. However, it is over 12 billion years old with perhaps a billion billion planets. Then perhaps our universe spawns other similar universes, or has indeed been spawned itself. Then, the anthropic principle clearly does not favour the possibility of a creator
It is amazing the burden of proof these guys try do put on rationalists when their beliefs have no evidence at all.
Regarging my earlier comment about Christianity plagiarising Pagan myths, perhaps the theists should listen to the 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr :"When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]

Quetz
I didnt realise that you too were:
born of a spotless virgin
retired to the wilderness and fasted for forty days
was worshipped as a God
was crucified between two thieves
was buried and descended into Hell
rose the third day

1126. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #34039 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:03 am

Mark,
I was under the impression that Stevie was pointing out that the solar system was a bad calendar considering the christian point of view that it was made for our benefit. Plenty of things argue against this, such as the presence of the oort cloud, which occasionally launches things in our direction.

1127. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34031 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 4:48 am

Devolved
Evolution in its simplest form is the change in the gene frequencies of a population over time. This happens everytime a new individual is born or dies. Evolution is based on evidence and is tested - and stands up to testing. It is in no way equivalent to a belief in a god.

Please give your money to the RDF!

PS if youy are an evolution denying creationist troll, I'm going to ignore you

1128. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #34012 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 3:21 am

Mark

Stevie B (936) and Billy (957): Lee has just rendered your proposed alternative proof of God's existence (= a purported disproof of his existence) quite worthless.

How?

Lee
I see you sorted out the avatar. There is also an interesting lecture there on the human body as a mosaic. It reminded me that our genomes are an "ecosystem" that contains integrated retroviruses amongst other things. It was also interesting that our tapeworms are most closely related to those of lions.

Brian Nice to finally put a face to you.

1129. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34002 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 2:58 am

I thought the popes were supposed to have a direct line to the unchanging god. Next he will be telling us that the whole of christianity from the virgin birth to the resurrection is ripped off from other pagan religions - TSK! - really!

1130. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31532 by BillySands on April 13, 2007 at 6:53 am

Lee and Stevie
I guess we could list a lot of things about the earth that would be stupid from a design perspective. Theists meerly concentrate on the fact life exists (interestingly, the early planet was much less habitable to human life and there have been many catastrophies - we are in a cosmic firing range for example Interestingly genesis 1 says that the stars are there to tell the seasons by, so it is a very bad calendar in that case.

There may be some lectures here that are of interest to you http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/
I've only watched the first one of the undesigned universe series so far.

JC
Mark cant get a word in edgeways because of all your facts ;-)

1131. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31504 by BillySands on April 13, 2007 at 3:07 am

JC

in spite of Billy & Quetz's not-so-subtle hint that I'm posting too much

I hope you dont think I was implying that. I was merely submitting to your superior knowledge of Ezekiel, and was hoping you may comment on the dating of it.

Billy

1132. T. rex tissue shows they are related to chickens

Comment #31503 by BillySands on April 13, 2007 at 3:02 am

For those who can access it, the original paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/277

1133. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31415 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Quetzalcoatl
That sounds very reasonable your godship. If she does not satisfy, can I exchange her for Carmen Electra - or is that just the old testament god that allows that? If that is acceptable, then please give me absolutely no sign at all :-)

Mark In my rush for some lunchtime sunshine, I may not have made my point clearly.
This is what Nebuchadrezzar's army will do to Tyre:
Ezekiel 26:12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

From Ezekiel 29:18 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth.

So, in the first verse, we can see that there is a prediction of plunder, but in the second, we are told that no reward was obtained. Basically the first verse is predicting the destruction of Tyre. The second shows this did not quite happen according to plan, and mirrors actual events. Because of the language, it is also clear that the second verse is written after the attack, we may presume that the first was written before (this dates the writing of this part of the book. I'll need to think more about the implications of this for ezekiel - maybe JC could save me some research here :-) ).
By the way, what would it take for you to accept JC's point about equivocation? I think he has demonstrated his point beyond any reasonable doubt.

1134. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31359 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 6:16 am

Hi Mark,
Sorry to be brief, I want to have my lunch in the sun. Egypt was not desolate because it's pharonic system was intact. Nebuchadnezzar (who apparently made no claim to have won egypt - think he got defeated by them at carchamesh?) attacked in 586/7 BCE. The pharaoh at the time was Apries (598-570 BCE). In 570 BCE, he was defeated and replaced by Amasis, who reigned until 526 BCE, and was replaced by Psammetichus III (526-525 BCE), who was then replaced by the son of the Persian Cyrus the great.
Interestingly, it appears that Ezekiel is admitting he got it wrong about the handing over of plunder from tyre: Ezekiel 29: 17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Slightly off topic, I believe daniels 70 sets of 7s was an attempt to rescue or even extend a false prophecy in a time of national crisis (antiochus epiphanies). Eitherway, no messia came - see the link i posted earlier for more details

1135. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31347 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 5:07 am

Stevie Nice point about the calender. I haven't come across that before.

Quetzalcoatl That's me convinced. How would you like do be worshiped? Can you fix it for me to hook up with Jessica Alba? :-)

Lee

That site really is bad. My former church had a link to it, and I pointed out that it is full of lies and crap. It was then that I discovered that the minister wasn't really interested in the truth

1136. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31334 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 4:05 am

Hi Lee,
The problem with literature like that is that it assumes the bible to be true and that there must be a god, which is the point of contention between believers and non believers. A colleague once gave me a christian science pamphlet (this guy believed men and women have a different number of ribs because of genesis 2). The only arguements it had were the bible. I think the difference between believers and non believers is that we tend to give the otherside more consideration than they do. Basically, if it disagrees with the bible, it must be false. I read some creationist stuff on 14 C levels in Diamonds by mass spec. This was used as an arguement for a young earth, so I looked into it some more, and it turns out that 14C can be created de novo by decay of uranium in surrounding rocks. A creationist generally stops looking at the bit that suits him.

Maybe they need a visit from the baby eating bishop of Barthenwells, or to paraphrase Captain B. some more "To you Mr fundie, the age of reason was something that happened to someone else" :-)

1137. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31326 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:55 am

Mark

If I cant draw mysef away, I will get back to you on Ezekial (Im on a coffee break just now)


Jeremiah 25: 9 I will gather together all the armies of the north under King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, whom I have appointed as my deputy. I will bring them all against this land and its people and against the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy you and make you an object of horror and contempt and a ruin forever. 10 I will take away your happy singing and laughter. The joyful voices of bridegrooms and brides will no longer be heard. Your millstones will fall silent, and the lights in your homes will go out. 11 This entire land will become a desolate wasteland. Israel and her neighboring lands will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years.

12 "Then, after the seventy years of captivity are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his people for their sins," says the Lord. "I will make the country of the Babylonians[e] a wasteland forever.


It is claear that It is clear that isreal will remain desolate for the time span. It is clear from archaeological evidence, that this is not so, and even Jerusalem had a significant population at this time - the number of captives taken was very small. See the books I referenced above.
It is clear that they are to serve the king of babylon for 70 years (verse 11). There really is no other way to read this. The king was removed long before the seventy years were up.

Just to re-iterate, I do appreciate your efforts here, but at best, all you have done is shown that prophecy is not specific enough, and that plenty of doubt remains.

All the best

Billy

1138. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31318 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:33 am

Yeah, and the pope says that condoms don't prevent AIDS either!
Oh yeah, previous popes on the authority of the bible believed in a flat geocentric universe - not the first time it has been wrong! At least science allows you to move on when you are wrong. The bible is always fixed though

1139. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31190 by BillySands on April 11, 2007 at 9:48 am

JC

It is interesting that you bring up Ezekiel 29:17-20. Just before it, there are some more specific claims Ez 29:8 " 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill your men and their animals. 9 Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD. " 'Because you said, "The Nile is mine; I made it," 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. 11 No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries. (NIV)
There is the specific mention of 40 years of desolation. This never happened.
In much the same way, Jeremiah was specific about Jerusalem being desolate for 70 years. However, The Babylonians took Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE (rewriting the bible p154) and Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 538 BCE (rtb p156). He also proclaimed that the Jews could return home in the first year of his reign (Ezr. 1:1-4). This is at most 49 years, and even if we are generous and take the start of the prophecy as 597 BCE, when the Babylonians first laid siege to Jerusalem (The bible unearthed p293), that still only totals 59 years. During that time, neither Israel nor Jerusalem lay desolate (tbu pp 305-308), and Babylon was not destroyed by Cyrus. In fact, Alexander the Great (356-321 BCE) may have considered using the city as his capital (The Babylonians An Introduction p67).
Daniel tries to reinterpret this, and some christians claim it is about the date of the coming of Jesus (although, I don't think this is a valid reading of his "prophecy") Either way, that fails too, but is a story for another day (those interested can get more details here ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html). I'm not addicted to this site - I can stop any time I want to - wibble

1140. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31189 by BillySands on April 11, 2007 at 9:48 am

Lee
I think you asked somewhere about where YECs get their (dis)information from. It appears in sites such as these: http://www.creationontheweb.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

http://www.christiananswers.net/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
I find the content of these sites disgusting in their dishonesty and attempts to pervert the understanding of science. They make their agendas clear - that the bible is inerrant and will only interpret science in that light, and reject/deny that which contradicts the bible.

YECs should search these sites (some contributers are christian themselves)

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/

1141. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30902 by BillySands on April 10, 2007 at 9:17 am

What a muppet! The William Wallace stuff is news to me (and probably 5 million other Scots. Is he really saying we should believe in the ressurection because of our traditions? Here are some reasons not to believe in the resurrection; http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

1142. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29913 by BillySands on April 5, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Trying to not get drawn back in to something that takes up too much time. I noticed as i was skimming, some discussion about biblical values of morality. The OT is definately disgusting, with laws forecing victims to marry their rapists and calls to kill homosexuals, women and babies (ordered by god at jericho for example). Much of this does appear to be racially motivated. After all, nehemiah on reading the law (neh 13:1-3) makes it clear that moabites may never enter the assembly of god, and they expell those of mixed ancestry, not those following other religions - I think I discussed this earlier in relation to the fact that jesus had a moabite ancstor (ruth) that he shouldn't have had. Presumably they also split up families. How can you also justify murdering infants because their parents worship other gods? This is all pretty gross stuff. If theists want to argue that these laws relate to a particular stage of society, then they have to concede that god is not a source of moral absolutes, as hopefully they agree that such laws are just wrong. An amusing insight into the evils of the bible can be found here :http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html Check them in context, and you will find god is responsible.
Killing people for worshiping other gods is not in keeping with the christian idea of a loving and forgiving god who wants to save everyone (except blasphemers againt the holy spirit and apostates(that's me doubly screwed :-) ).
JC It is always a pleasure to read your very well argued posts. Have you written any books on religion at all?
Lee The incredulity that Theo and Behe show towards the bacterial flagellum displays their inability to come up with a rational explanation (no offence meant Theo, I think you are in denial about evolution, but I actually like you, and think you should read some books on evolution/geology with out a creationist commentry at your side when you do so) the bacterial syringe just shows that the intelligent design hypothesis is nothing more than a surrendering to personal limitations "If I cant explain it, then it must be god". This is just another example of the flawed worship of the god of the gaps.
Mark We will probably never agree on the interpretation of your verses, but thankyou for actually trying to provide something positive. That is chronically lacking from theists elsewhere on this site. I detect you and Shaun are literal young earth creationists though, but I will put much more weight in geology, radiochemistry, genetics, biochemistry, anatomy, ethology and geography rtc than I will in a book that has many problems associated with it and contradicts the evidence of the above.
Really going to try and keep away for a bit now - nothing personal :-)

1143. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #29488 by BillySands on April 3, 2007 at 4:47 am

Hi guys,
Just passing through. Not all Christian groups consider Daniel to be an inspired work, and some version of Daniel vary considerably, so it is not just sceptics that doubt its status. Mark, I dont have time to refute your claims, but I'm sure you know I do, and with reason, ont because I want to. I think I posted near the beginning of this thread on Jeremiah's failed prophecy, and how the bible says the jews defeated the Assyrians in 701 BCE and claimed that the Assyrian King Sennacherib went home to be killed by his sons. However, we know that Sennacherib lived a further 20 years, and built monuments to his victories against the jews. The OT is a book with an agenda, not (all) sceptics

Theo
The bacterial flagellum can be further reduced to a structure called the bacterial syringe, It is not irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is an arguement from ignorance. Just because you cannot immagine how something can not be reduced, is no evidence for a creator. It just means you cant or wont come up with a rational explanation -like the bacterial syringe. This is very embarrassing for IDists, because it was one of their flagships - it has now been reduced - I can hear the arguements for infinite reduction already.
BTW, the universe is at least 12 billion years old, and may contain a billion billion planets, that is plenty of opportunity for life to arise - and it took about 9 billion years for it to do so in this corner of space. A more convincing arguement for god would be a young universe with only one planet in it. That however is not the universe we inhabit - being a physicist, I'm sure Lee can argue this point with those who wish to deny science.

Dont plan comming back in any great hurry, so take care guys

Billy

1144. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #29463 by BillySands on April 3, 2007 at 2:12 am

Philmillhaven
I had a bizzarre discussion with a christian friend on friday about Bach, Beethoven et al. He actually claimed that the beauty in these works was in itself evidence of god's existence. Yhen I pointed out that other religions produce works of beauty too, but no one claims that these are evidence for their gods. Thankfully, he agreeed with me, but it just shows how so many christians are unable to look beyond the boundries of their own faith.

veronique
You are very correct. I wonder how many theists he has deconverted.

1145. Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set

Comment #29180 by BillySands on April 2, 2007 at 2:25 am

Nice one Richard! Cant wait to hear what those who want their kids to grow up believing in a blood thirsty, tyrannical, homophobic, baby killing god have to say about this

1146. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #29018 by BillySands on April 1, 2007 at 7:54 am

One final thing, keeping on the topic of parasitism, how can a so called loving god create diseases such as Small Pox, Ebola and River blindness. Lets not forget HIV which infects babies that have never sinned - oh yes, that's right, we are sinful from conception (psalm 51:5). I blame god. Afterall, he makes us in the womb (psalm 139:14-15), so he must make us sinfull - well, he hasnt written his law on our hearts - we have to learn them (psalm 119:7) Is this just? Is this what you really worship? That is just disgusting and we will never see eye to eve on this.

1147. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #29015 by BillySands on April 1, 2007 at 7:27 am

David, Why do I bother with you, I must feel sorry for you. There may be up to a billion billion planets in the universe, which is itself 12 billion years old, and will gget a lot older (no second commings that should have happened 2000 years ago (mat 26:64)! That is a large opportunity for life to appear by chance. Then again, life may be more probable than you think. Afterall, ther eis no reliable way to work out the probability of it occurring. If the earth was a few thousand years old and the only planet in the universe, you may have a point, but it's not and you dont, so please drop your corrupted view of the anthropic principle as evidence for god. Here is something for you to ponder. You believe that if god wanted to, he could provide ultimate proof that he exists. You have lots of contrived excuses as to why he doesn't. Given that you believe that god has his reasons not to appear, why do you think that you should try and prove his existance, after all, he is supposed to convert folk through the holy spirit.
Dont lie about tarring all atheists with the same brush. You have a rich history on this site of branding people who disagree with you as fundamentalists - do you think that is going to endear any one to you? as for your comments about starting with a presupposition that god does not exist, there is no evidence for that, so why should we assume he exists, and we dont need him to explain anything. You assume with out evidence that he does exist, and you delude yourself. Your position starts from the assumption that all other views and gods are false - who is the closed minded one then?

Btw, the bible sets disgusting moral standards. Here is just one example, how is it moral to make a rapist marry his victim, pay her father and never be allowed to divorce her (deut 22:28-29). If you say it is because of the society that the law was for, then you have to conclude that god is not a source of moral absolutes and that there is no need for him in a moral sence - how do you explain the fact that of the few examples of good moral practice in the bible, nost people regardless of belief share them? Let me introduce you to the answer to that - natural selection
for those interested, this is a good source for some of those gool old moral laws of god.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
If you do not share gods warped moral views, then you are condemned to an eternity of suffering in hell - according to david (not according to many other christian groups though). Are we to assume that David supports these disgusting laws?
Micah 5:2 or Isaiah 7:14 in their original contexts anyone?

1148. Across the Universe: A Guide to the Past, Present and Future of the Cosmos

Comment #29011 by BillySands on April 1, 2007 at 7:03 am

I often find that when people talk about the probability of life in general, they tend to think in terms of life as we recognise it here on earth. Even on earth there are many niches that are occupied by life that were previously thought uninhabitle. This is another reason to be unimpressed by those who try to use the anthropic principle for theistic purposes: that and the fact that there may be a billion billion planets in a 12 billion year old universe - not counting all the planets that have been and ever will be. If the earth were the only planet in the universe, and it were a few thousand years old, then the theist would have a stronger case - instead of none at all. Could that be why creationists are in denial of scientific facts? just a thought!

1149. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24742 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 9:35 am

couldbethelasttime
I am refering to those who have doubts about god.
I too would like high quality debate, but people like bizzaro fail to provide it (his bias is clear in his choice of pseudonym). Usually all we see are personal attacks on dawkins, atheist, ignorant mythology, arguements from incredulity and preaching. No positive evidence of god. It would be worthwile debateing only with those who are open minded enough to realise that they may be wrong. Most atheists (myself included) do accept there is a small possibility we could be wrong, however, we see no evidence that we are. As I keep saying, I will re-evaluate my position on evolution if someone shows me an articulated fossil human in the earliest rocks - even with articulated dinosaur fossils would do (half expecting someone to mention the glen rose dinosaur tracks now - check the size of them guys!)
I dont see many theists on this site with that attitude

1150. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24734 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 9:01 am

Bizarro, You clearly come to this forum with a closed mind, so dont accuse me of what you are. Tell me was your first post really a loving christian comment? If jesus was real, he wouldn't be happy with you alienating folk with comments like that. It puts people off anything you may have to contribute - which n terms of gods existance so far has been nothing Got a photo? an inerrant book? real prophecies about jesus that have not been contrived? evidence of a 6 day creation? No?
I'm sorry you cant see that biblical problems totally undermine the bible itself. Perhaps this is you puting your head in the sand and hoping it will go away here.

PS, I have had civil debates with civil christians like Shaun, Theo , mark tauton etc and spoken out against those who insuled them. Get the point?
couldthisbethelastime,
The more junk people publish, the more people will see how absurd faith is.