1151. 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.

1152. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24729 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 8:37 am

couldthisbethelastime,

I have come across him before. His only intention is to wind people up, not disuss anything. Therefore, he deserves my contempt.

PS, I'm not angry, I'm just telling it how it is. Do you really think reason will work on someone who comes in and makes a comment like that?

1153. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24725 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 8:19 am

Bizzarro, I actually think you are a retard that is indulging in strawman making of his own. But hey, for hypervitriol, you just cant beat the bible. The bible says that we all deserve to go to hell, especially those nasty moabites that must never enter the congregation of god - you know like the ones Ezra kicked out after reading the law of god. Oh wait, I just remembered, Jesus had a moabite ancestor (one of the few ones Matthew and Luke can agree on. Oh dear, does that mean the whole philosophy that you build your understanding of the universe on is bullshit???????

It would have been nice if you actually had something worth saying, instead of launching into a vitriolic attack - but hey, thats the bible for you. By the way, Does richard deserve to be stoned for saying god almost cetainally does not exist? It's in the Babble afterall. Like I say, Retard!
PS Hear the one about the ot prophecies foretelling that jesus would be born in Bethelehem to a virgin and that he would return one day?
NA?, me neither, they don't exist.

1154. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24717 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 7:22 am

Posted this elsewhere, but this is probably a better place for it.
Fundies say the darndest, maddest and saddest things http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp
I particularly like this one

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"

I wonder what colour the sun is on his planet

1155. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24701 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 5:41 am

Strange, neither God or the bible got shortlisted. Guess they dont have an infanticidal bronze age mythology award

1156. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24699 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 5:17 am

Fundies say the darndest, maddest and saddest things http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp

I particularly like this one

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"

I wonder what colour the sun is on his planet

1157. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #24695 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 4:46 am

Hi Lee,
Thanks for your comments. I was not knocking physics by the way, just pointing out that things like cosmology are still in their infacy just now.

Mark As I said, some things on Kinsey's site are not true contradictions. Many are though. And when I said Check for yourself, that naturally means read the context, and I have pointed out that christians fail to do so concerning prophecies.
God actually killed more than a few in the bible. The count exceeds 2 million. And if he were god, that does not make killing infants etc right - that is totally incompatible with a loving and forgiving god. We will just have to agree to differ on that, because the OT god in particular disgusts me

Theo

Infinite regress stops at an infinite being.

You are going to have to back that up and disprove the possibility of other explanations (known and unknown). Also, you are not only assuming a creator, but you are assuming qualities about that creator. You are in effect creating the rules here - and without justification. I see no evidence to believe in a creator. How can something just be and not need an explanation of its own origins? for arguement sake, why can the universe not have always existed without a god?

A reproducing cell that was assembled by chance is easier to believe than a cell being created by intelligence . . . you lost me there. What? So where did God come from? See above

See above. Who created god?

This is why atheists should not object to atheism being called a faith. To believe in a scientifically falsified theory over a theory that cannot be scientifically tested is truly delusional.

It is not a faith and you contantly saying so does not make you right. I'm sorry to say that evolution hasd not been falsified, and so much evidence exists for it. I can also sequence and compare genes and genomes, compare fossil homologies, date rocks etc. Evolution can be tested and is striongly supported. It is a reasonable belief. If you think that atheism is a faith (although you confuse this with belief in evolution) then deciding to sit on a chair is also an act of faith - will it hold my weight?
You howevere have no direct proof of god, and there is much evidence against the claims of the bible. Please point out the delusion here.

Actually Billy I am arguing from a deistic perspective (for argument sake) because the bible/ Christianity/ Evolution does not have any bearing on the existence of a creator. I have wasted enough time on debating the bible with atheists, even though I have refuted all claims directed to me about the scriptures it seems that no profit was gained. I am not squandering any more time going back there.

No, you are argueing about a hypothetical creator who just happens to have the qualities you want your god to have (without any evidence that he even exists first). I dont recall you refuting my comments on Isaiah 7:14 or Micah 5:2. I seem to remember that no valid defense was made.

You have provided no reproducible evidence that life could have arisen without a creator, do you really want me to believe in the falsified S.G. hypothesis? That is absurd to say the least! The burden of proof is on you Billy. (I could however delude myself into actually accepting a falsified theory so that atheists would label me a "Critical Thinker")

Theo, we are back at the god of the gaps again here. The genetic similarities in all life argue against creation, The decaying remnats of ancestral genes do too. Mutation is random and most are harmful. The forces that cause speciation - climate change, continental drift, volcanism etc all have physical explanations. How does that indicate the presence of god?
Here are some evolutionary predictions.
organisms on one continent are more simmilar to each other than to ones on different continents - Proven true!
the most similar organisms have the most similar genes - Again true!
New groups appear in the fossil record at different times - Very true!
Transitional forms appear at an appropriate time in the fossil record - True! (the record is better than you seem willing to believe)
We inherit pseudogenes and repetetive elements from ancestral species groups - true - read about hhuman specific, ape specific and promate specific lines and sines and the evolutionm of the globin genes of primates. All show evolutionary progression.
ETC ETC ETC (i AM BORED WITH THIS!)
You are in denial about evolution. You have provided no evidence against it

How does your evidence of "creation" compare to this?

BTW there is a difference between an atom and an electron

God is bigger than an electon, and we have evidence that electons exist

Going to try not to come back - nothing personal, it just eats up too much time

1158. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24687 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 4:05 am

Scottishgeologist,

Prayer most cerainly does work. I asked the spaghetti monster not to let my head fall off during the night, and it didn't so there!

Seriously, it does make me despair at the fact these folk think that anything will ever happen. I remember as I was comming to my senses, my former minister prayed that jesus would appear to Saddam hussein and prevent the war happening. They also shout "miracle" any time someone appears to break an addiction. Usually they send 6 months in rehab getting proper medical care, then a few months later, they relapse. I even asked David to pray thay Jessica Alba and Kirsty Gallacher would kick down my door and "Know" me. I'm still waiting :-(

1159. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24545 by BillySands on March 7, 2007 at 7:18 am

Love the link Ewan. It is amazing that no one in their right mind would buy the kiss Hanks ass thing, but you mix a bit of memetics with the need for a psychological crutch and you get christianity and the kissing of god's ass.
Wonder if Mary Magdalene gave Jesus a trouser friendly kiss? :-)

When I get a new colour catridge, I think I will attach a god delusion flyer to my old church (oh no, David will call me a fundie for trying to encourage people to consider their faith in a non violent way)

1160. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #24388 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 10:31 am

Dirtpiggy,
People like Robertson call anyone who does not accept their authority fundamentalists. They often label passion about knowing the truth as closed minded fanaticism. Yet, the more they rant and the more they fail to engage in reasoned debate, the more they take on the accusations they falsely hurl at atheists.

1161. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #24387 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 10:21 am

I wonder what verses they used. Some of them are not justifiable on any grounds - like killing babies because their parents have a different faith.
We "protect" children from violent and sexually explicit material by introducing guidance ratings and watersheds. Should we not also protect them from the intolerant genocidal filth that is in the bible too?

1162. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24384 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 10:01 am

Chris,
I love the freecrutch comment :-) Sadly, it is often the case that this cructch does more harm than good to those who rely upon it.
It's funny that several folk have said or implied that Robertson has talked them out of faith. It truely is a valuable preaching opportunity. I'm yet to hear someone say " well done David, thanks to you I have become a Christian - wibble! woof woof!"

1163. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24377 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 9:11 am

Nicely put Jenny (sorry for the back slapping). The idea that we deserve death is totally repulsive, and why does all mankind deserve this? Well allegedly 2 people ate a fruit that god told them not to. We all deserve death for this one act. Funny thing was, this fruit allowed them to know the difference between right and wrong. Before that, they could not tell the difference. They were punnished severely for an act they did not know was wrong. And what loving father creates evil and puts it in the garden beside his children. A bit like letting a paedophile baby sit for you really. How screwed up is that myth! But I have seen and experienced how this lack of self worth ruins lives - no doubt David does not know any such people and denies they exist - especially in his own church.
I mention a bit about evolution and "sin" in coment 89
PS dont give him credit on his knowledge of scripture. He doesnt deserve any. Check his own thread by the way. Apparently Alex was a minister in his church and puts him through the mill (as have many others)

1164. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #24368 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 8:01 am

I wonder what christian heritage she means? Religious wars, slavery and crusades perhaps? Surely that is something to apologise for - like the holocaust, and not celebrate.
Why do we have to drag religion into it. Can we not just concentrate on people for once and not cause further division in the name of white chistian supremacy - Fucking arsehole!

90 MILLION GERMANS CANT BE WRONG! PS DON'T MENTION ZE WAR - EITHER OF THEM

1165. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24360 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 7:15 am

Ian,
As well as Psalm 14, the bible is full of hate for those who dont follow its god.
A nice example is found here in Deuteronomy 13 "6 "Suppose someone secretly entices you—even your brother, your son or daughter, your beloved wife, or your closest friend—and says, 'Let us go worship other gods'—gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known. 7 They might suggest that you worship the gods of peoples who live nearby or who come from the ends of the earth. 8 But do not give in or listen. Have no pity, and do not spare or protect them. 9 You must put them to death! Strike the first blow yourself, and then all the people must join in. 10 Stone the guilty ones to death because they have tried to draw you away from the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear about it and be afraid, and no one will act so wickedly again."

Note it also seems to think that fear is a good motive to make others do what it considers right. Surely true "goodness" if it actually exists is done for goodness sake.

And David. It was the appaulingly immoral actions of an other christian that caused me to start questioning. I guess you lot are the only ones who actually think you are nice. Who has the best behaviour is actually irrelevant to the issue of gods existance anyway. It therefore does not suprise me that you are prolonging it. OK it does suprise me a little bit, there have been 2001-2011 years of christian atrocities, so you dont exactly smell of roses. Forgive the 10 year uncertainty. I just cant work out who is right about the date of jesus' birth (Matt 4 BCE or Luke 6CE). I seem to remember that you were no help there - you just said there was no evidence of a conflict, and when I presented evidence there was, you invented some non evidence of your own (actually I think you never actually evaluated it for yourself) then I destroyed your evidence (a nameless, dateless, adressless partial inscription of no relevance) and you just said that I was wrong, with no reason why. There is a definate theme here with you. Isn't there!

1166. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24331 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 3:23 am

David
This is typical of your response

FedlerGenerally, I feel non-believers stop at "I don't know", whereas believers go one step further and say "It's God".

DavidNot so true. I am not a 'God of the Gaps' person. And many others are not as well.

That is not a reasoned justification of your position. It is made even worse for you because Fedler then went on to say this:

However, I then feel the believers have the responsibility to explain their one step further.

You totally ignored this very important point and just said "i am not like that". We tould love to hear your justification of this step.

By the way Tom Day. He writes elsewere that some gushy inner feelings about the sea and singing made him realise that god was true.

BTW David, was your rant at Gordon Brown a childish attempt to say " in your face atheists, we will have another christian prime minister"?

Personally, any government that allows equality for all faiths (and lack of) and removes privilages from exclusive homophobic christians (sexual orientation bill and christian unions) is alright in my book

1167. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24322 by BillySands on March 6, 2007 at 2:36 am

Good Morning David,
I see you have omitted to defend the virgin birth prophecy again. That's pretty typical of your approach. Instead, you like to state things like

Have a wee look at my letters and you will see the clear evidence that Hitler was not a Christian and that he in fact expounded very similar beliefs to many atheists.

Hitler was indeed a christian, and you have had this pointed out to you often - I believe this was the subject of a couple of Martin's posts that you deleted from your site. Are you actually saying that all christians behave perfectly? In many respects, Hitler acted just like Josuah, who was commanded (by god) to eradicate the cananites. How can you say that he was not acting like a follower of your god. One that acted in a pleasing way to him at that I suspect that despite your claims to the contrary that you are taking a swipe at atheists here.

Everyone, I have a prediction. David keeps saying that there is no incompatibility between science and the bible. I bet he wont defend this position.
For many reasons, I think there is an incompatibility. Evolution makes amokery of the 6 day creation (some thing that GOD, "moses", paul and jesus clearly believe). Evolution also makes a mockery of the fall. After all, survival traits are selfish. Selfishness is a sin. We were selected (naturally) to be selfish. Therefore, we did not bring sin into the world, it was always there. No fall, then there is no need for jesus. Or is this yet another unjust side of god that I have exposed. Like I said David, prophecies attibuted to Jesus ARE NOT ABOUT JESUS, therefore christianity is a myth

1168. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24221 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 11:14 am

But you see that is the trouble. You ask for empirical scientific absolute proof of a material God - and use that to discount the possibility of a non material God.

Yet another irrational assumption based on another irrational assumption. You are going to have to justify that a god whose holy book claims he interacts in the physical world, who asks you to test him is beyond testing. One example is Isaiah 7:11 (part of the virgin birth non prophecy is one of many examples) where God says "Ask me for a sign".
How many people here have had some fundie come up to them and say that if they trust god, he will prove himself to them - no doubt that has never happened to David, and he has never said that to anyone himself
Such comments about testability are just non biblical wishful thinking by those who dont want to face up to their delusion.
If all you can say is believe because it might be true, then that is no rational foundation for belief.

1169. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24201 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 8:29 am

Hey David, I thought you wanted to argue your case? I posted some stuff above on prophecies. Perhaps you would actualy care to respond, and if it is the case that you can not mount a reasonable defence, then be honest enough to admit that you are relying on faith despite the evidence to the contrary.
I expect that you wont, given your previous comment concerning the date of the nativity in luke vs matthew. What was it again " I'll answer that on the assumption that you wish to be educated and are not making accusations against the bible" or words to that effect, that show your inability to consider that you could be wrong. Shame you went in a huff when your comment was destroyed. You may have been educated.

Yours Unexpectantly

Billy

1170. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24176 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 6:40 am

Fonex said:

I fail to see these theists' point. If god exists, and is as powerful as they claim (forget omniscience for now), why would he need any religious yahoos to defend him/her/itself?

What a beautifully simple but devastating statement. Of course, theists lie to themselves and say that we really are not looking hard enough for god (i think that really means that we are not leading ourselves into delusion by brainwashing ourselves).
No theist has any good evidence. It is all just "well, you cant prove or disprove anything, so our faith is on the same par as yours". Yeah, and we all think the spaghetti monster in on the same par too! A book that claims the earth is flat, six thousand years old, and that life was created in its current form in 6 days is not a viable option. It fails the reality test.

Theist : "Ah, but it is not meant to be taken literally"
Atheist: "REALLY, HOW DO YOU KNOW?"
Theist: "Well science shows that is not the way it is"
Atheist" So, you have already decided the bible is evidence of god, so you are trying to bend its message with out reason to make it fit reality. Having done so, you then hold this up as evidence that it is evidence of god? isn't that somewhat insane?"
Theist: "Well, obviously you have to read it in the spirit of god"
Atheist: " so your faith is not based on rationality because you are already presuming the existance of god"
Theist: "erm well, you cant prove anything, so all belief systems are equally likely"
Atheist: "yaaawwwnnn"

1171. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24172 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 6:15 am

Your definition of faith seems to be based on yet another atheist myth, that faith is irrational and despite or even in opposition to, the evidence.

David, if Stewart reads your thread he will see you show how irrational your faith is http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson
Why do Matthew (1) and Luke (3) give totally different genealogies for jesus again?
How is Isaiah 7:14 about jesus being born to a virgin? For those who dont know, it is actually about a sign to be given to a king by god as assurance that the land will not be invaded. This all happens about 730 BCE.
Davids response is that a prophecy is not necessarily about the person it is given for, or restricted to the context in which it is given - apparently everyone knows that. Is this really faith based on reason? of course not.
I point these things out and he just gets abusive and tells me I know nothing and should take some pills boo hoo :-(

The fact of the matter is that david has decided the bible is true despite the evidence. It is clear in places that he will not consider that he is wrong. In other places he pretends to doubt, and in other places he says that he is as certain that jesus is alive as he is of his own wifes existance. Come on David, it's time for you to get some therapy isn't it.

1172. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24167 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 5:52 am

Parasitism is probably the most exploited ecological niche on the planet. Even parasites have parasites. These guys particularly Robertson display an incredible example of parasitic reductionism, where parasites lose genes that they no longer require. In this case, genes for intelligence

1173. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24162 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 5:34 am

"The Wee Flea (aka David Robertson - just in case some can't work it out - I would not want to be accused of dishonesty again!)."

What a liar!!! you were not accused of dishonesty for covering up your identity (there are plenty of other reasons we could give though). Where it was pointed out that you were stpetes, a link was provided to a comment confirming this. The comment gave your reasons for this change. You really are a slippery liar who tries to distort things to make others look bad.
I presume your book contains your letters to dawkins. If so, good. They have been well ripped appart, and we can go on the publishers site and review the book for them. That would be nice. wouldn't it

1174. Faith

Comment #24161 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 5:24 am

Well, Wee Flee aka David,

117. Billy - it's not good to lie. There is no member of my Church who thinks they are going to hell for listening to the wrong music - musical tastes in my congregation range from heavy metal to Cliff Richard (although perhaps this latter should result in at least purgatory!). Please don't misrepresent and caricature. You obviously have a lot of angst and anger but try to avoid letting it all come out here.

Now, David, If you actually read my post carefully, the claim was that she was told she would go to hell for listening to the wrong music. Since you do not know who I am referring to, I find it amazing that you seem to know what she does and does not believe. And on a bad day, comments like that do make her believe she is going to hell. BTW I am referring to the free church as a whole, not your specific branch
Yeah, I am angry at hypocritical idiots like you that go go out of their way to decieve and wind folk up. Don't make it common knowledge David, but there are Christians on this site with whom I have had discussions that have been carried out with mutual respect. I think I was quite respectful on your site too. I found Catherine so nice that I almost felt guilty about attacking her faith. In fact most people on your site were nice - Hell, if the Partick wee frees do an alpha course, I may even go along and politely discuss my position with them.
Shame you are not so pleasant though

121. Billy - naughty naughty. Posts were not repeatedly removed. You had a couple removed because they were off topic and you were told to post them in a new thread.

Actually David, they were not off thread. I seem to remember that it was the "argueing with atheists" thread. The comments were about your misrepresentation of atheists and atheism(Fancy retracting your biochemist comment yet?)

We have actually allowed both you and Martin to post (Martins posts were excellent and a fine example of how to argue) without editing.

Tut Tut David - trying to iumply my arguements were not good - actually you said that about Martin elsewhere too - pathetic attempt to get a rise. Oh, How did you deal with my dismissal of Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14? Paleopathology and the fall? The census of quirinius? Thats right you didn't. the moment you realised that you were losing, you went in a huff, branded me a fundamentalist, told me to keep taking the pills etc etc. Come on David.,What age are you really?

Do you not think it a bit ironic that atheists are allowed to post on the Free Church website material which some will find very upsetting,

What, you mean like evidence that the bible is false? Are you really such a weak lot? Why did you delete that troll comment of yours when I posted it for your congregation to see? Are you then saying that it is OK for you to then come here and be offensive?

(I guess most atheists would caricature us as fundamentalists) whilst any time I say anything which upsets the poor wee souls on this site I get banned! Go figure....

Amazing David, you denounce caricature formation, yet form one of your own. Truely amazing! I was threatened with a ban by you for reproducing your troll comment on your site. I was also threatened with a ban for posting on too may threads. Seems that you guys have a very low threshold of intolerance - or perhaps you didn't want your church to see what an inflammatory twat you really are?
I presume you think the longer you can keep the aggro going on this site, the less you have to argue your case - oh, that's right, as mentioned above you cant!
However, You have pointed one thing out to me. Because of the inconsistent doctrine of Paul's letters, I thought that was evidence that more than one person wrote them and pretended to be him. However, from your inconsistency, I may have to conclude that There was only one Paul - who happened to be a nutjob!
I hope someone publishes a list of your self contradictions, that would be funny

1175. Faith

Comment #24154 by BillySands on March 5, 2007 at 4:15 am

If you read some of his other posts, I think Robertson asks for it and probably encourages it, so he can say to his church "see what they are like" (actully he has a thread on his site about argueing with atheists - where he repeatedly removed polite postings by myself and Martin Gill).

As an exchristian and biochemist, this quote of his really offended me:

I think of the award winning brilliant post doc biochemist. (I'm afraid that I cannot mention his name because such is the witch-hunt that is currently being orchestrated by some in British academic establishments against any scientist who could be deemed a 'creationist', it might actually be a threat to his career)

Despite providing evidence to the contrary, he would not retract this lie. In short, he is a twat. There are actually decent theists on this site, Hopefully we do not tar them all with the same brush as Robertson - something he tries to do with atheists

1176. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23679 by BillySands on March 2, 2007 at 3:35 am

Hi Theo,
you're in luck, I've got a cold and need something to occupy me today (prob really will be my last posting this time).

Um, yes I did. Evidence for a Creator is Creation. Its elementary.

No Theo, you have already presumed the existance of a creator. Since you want to propose a creator and not specifically your god, then a creator surely presupposes a creator of him then and so on to infinity. Compared to this, a naturalistic explanation of life must surely be a simpler and more likely possibility.

Accepting Spontaneous Generation without any proof is even poorer Billy.

No it is not, see above.

Nope, I am not arguing from a biblical perspective (for expedient reasons). The debate is concerning the evidence for a Creator looking at purely extra biblical evidence . As I said before Billy, I will not indulge in evolution either; I am looking at origins.

Unfortunately you are ultimately argueing for the existance of your god, and he says creation took place in 6 days. You seem to be setting the rules to suit yourself here. The fact is that the fossil record, geology, genetics, radiochemisrty all say this did not happen. This I why I say that your specific god cannot be the creator. If you want to take the deist view (which you dont) you still have to explain the existance of the creator.

Did scientists discover atoms because they saw them? Or did they use evidence from the cathode ray and gold foil experiment? They proved the existence of atoms based on indirect observation. Please consider the folly, "No one has seen electrons, so provide direct proof." Savvy?

I chose this example cafefully. The point is that anyone can reproduce Rutherford's experiment and get the same data. All you really have is that life looks designed, therefore it must be, or how can life spontaneously arise? - I cant understand it, so it must be god. It is hardly the same as reproducible evidence. You have provided none. Evolution shows life increasing in complexity and that destroys your version of the god hypothesis - regardless of opinions about origins.

BTW we can directly visualise atoms now. 12 billion years of "creation" and no one has a photo of yahweh

Take care - I'm off to OD on paracetamol - Oh no! some one put the laxatives in the wrong bottle - PPPTTTHHHHTTTT SQUIT :-)

1177. Faith

Comment #23669 by BillySands on March 2, 2007 at 2:17 am

Scottishgeologist,
Robertson is full of tactics like that. He is either lying or needs to meet more people. I know a member of his church who has been dammaged by her mothers constant preaching on hell. Hell for wanting sex, hell for not giving to charity, hell for not being like jesus, Hell for being into the "wrong" music, hell for eating spam etc etc (ok, I made the last one up, but I would not be suprised). A very sad way to have your life spoiled

1178. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23536 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Theo,
this will probably be my last post here. You have provided no evidence for your claims of life. If a god of the gaps arguement is your reason for believing, that is a pretty poor one. One thing is for sure though, as mentioned above complex life only appears late on in the fossil record and follows a ligical sequence. Literal 6 day creationism is therefore not an option. Given the random nature of mutation, guided evolution is not an option either.
Since when has it become necessary to prove the non existance of something for which there is no evidence. Do you feel the need to disprove any theory that states fairies created life? Over 100 years ago, If I said matter was made from atoms that no one had seen, you would quite rightly put the burden of proof on me. No one has seen god, so provide direct proof (actually moses has seen him, even though the bible says no one may see him and live - i discuss this near the start of the thread- strange that from a book that is allegedly the truth!). No one has countered my earlier claims that messianic prophecies are made up either. Wake up and smell the coffee dude, there is no god - especially yours

All the best
Billy

1179. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23521 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 12:23 pm

oh dear GBG,
the platypus an embarrasment to evolution? Is that the same platypus that is a good link between mammals and mamal like reptiles? I suppose you think it really does have a birds beak.
Your refusal to get into a debate about archaeopteryx underlines your position of faith. I keep telling you, argue fror youself, dont quote others (especially physicists) to support your need to deny evolution.

You really should justify your rejection of homologus structures. Your comment reveales your closed mindedness - something that you cannot throw back at me because religion and evolution were never an issue to me. You still fail to comment on why we have fossilised genes. For example over half of our olfactory receptor genes are corrupt. Why do we have them? Related species have functional copies. The further you go back the less related a species is to us the more functional genes they contain. The obvious explanation is that we inhereted these genes from ancestors that had and used them. we stopped using them, so natural selection was not actin on them, so they became corrupt. Interestingly, this seems to correlate with the evolution of trichromatic vision in our ancestors (through gene dupication events).

You Also have nothing to say on the fossil record, and you allude to species that suddenly appear with no ancestors. What fish (conodonts) amphibians (acanthostega) mammals (dimetrodon) birds (sinosauroptrex (even more dinosaur like with even more primitive feathers than archaeoptreyx - if you think teeth are the only non bird like property of archaeoptrex, you obviously paid no attention to the 20+ morphological features I posted elsewhere - or you just dont want them to be true). Now, gaps in the fossil record are hardly a case for creationism. Plenty of nice fossils no doubt wait to be discovered. What is a problem for creationism though is that you do not get birds and humans in the oldest rocks. You seem to ignore this fact, as well as the timies that innermediate fossils occur in the fossil record. Why are modern humans only found in rocks younger than 1-200 0000 years ols, but the earliest fossils are thousands of millions of years old? Why?
You have no case against evolution - The bible is wrong, deal with it!

I will forgo the links thanks. Previous experience of your links just leave me exasperated at the ignorance and misrepresentations on the sites. If you had argued your point i would have considered it

If this is such a big deal to you, I suggest that you actually consider the evidence for yourself. Your main arguements come in the form of "so and so says so". You clearly are just going along with what suits the way you want things to be. i probably wont reply to you again, because your mind is so clearly closed.

Despite the harsh words, all the best
Billy

1180. The Only One in Step

Comment #23516 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 11:44 am

BaronOchs,
GBG and other IDist like to simply look at life and go "wow, that is really complex, it can only be gods work".
I have suggested he reads about opsin gene evolution and "fossil" genes in the past. He has a closed mind and despite the overwhelming evidence, he sticks to this delued and misinformed mantra of "no transitional fossils exist", "a fly produces a fly" etc. He either is not listening, or has decided evolution is wrong, and nothing is going to change his mind. Personally i think that is his loss. i think understanding molecular evolution makes organisms that much more wonderful.

1181. The Only One in Step

Comment #23515 by BillySands on March 1, 2007 at 11:36 am

GBG,
I really am getting tired of your misinformed attacks on evolution. Where do you get this rubbish from? I'm still waiting for a detailed refutation of bird dinosaur liks from you. Would it not be fair to say that the only reason you have a problem with it is because it is non biblical? Your mind is therefore closed and I personally dont see any point continuing any discussion with you. There are plenty of transitional fossils, life does not appear suddenly, we have DNA evidence from LINES and SINES, we have pseudogenes, we have horizontal transfer, gene duplications, convertion of processed pseudogenes etc etc. And despite that, you would rather believe a book (which most certainly does say the earth is flat). In fact, you believe in a god you have never seen or heard. How is your bible any different to the koran? It is so full of errors, look at how hard you have to defend it. It is no different to the koran in that respect. At least we both agree that is not a divenely inspired book.

1182. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23348 by BillySands on February 28, 2007 at 3:16 am

Dont you just love the way that theists invent properties for a god there is no direct evidence for. No one has ever been able to come up with a good biblical arguement that god is out side space and time, and as mentioned, there are plenty of times when he does appear in space and time (according to the bible anyway).
And whats all this about god not wanting to prove his existance. Is that not the reason that John wrote his gospel?
Like all theists, Collins seems to want to argue by his own rules, for which there is no evidence. This allows him (in his own mind at least) to "win"

1183. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23342 by BillySands on February 28, 2007 at 2:20 am

I like the opening comment about religion being a mental illness. It is so true

1184. Faith

Comment #23340 by BillySands on February 28, 2007 at 1:54 am

As much as I dont like him, I dont think we should ban Robertson. He is a good reason not to believe, and although he does not know it, he shows up the irrationality of faith.
Didn't know Alex was the minister that Robertson was so unhappy about. That is interesting, and it would be interesting to hear his anti-testimony. I actually considered becoming a minister for a bit too (hard to believe I know). One of my friends did divinity and said that the drop out rate was high, because the more you learn about the bible, the more you realise how much nonsence it is. He dropped out and is now an atheist

1185. Faith

Comment #23233 by BillySands on February 27, 2007 at 3:31 am

hey dave, no one said you were hiding your identity. Go to the page where I reference your change of name and it clearly gives your reasons.Sounds paranoid dave. I can see where you get your bizzarre ability to misinterpret the bible though.
It is actally something called memory and not detective work.
If you dont know why you are labelled a troll, then there is no hope for you. I feel it is sad that I have to tell someone older than me that insulting people does not endear you to them.
Remember this little unprovoked gem of yours?

Thanks Evolved and others for bringing my attention to this. And thanks for the e-mail address. I have just written to Channel 4 as you suggested and congratulated them on producing such a fair, thoughtful and balanced programme. I also warned them that the atheist fundamentalists who inhabit this particular area of cyberspace were being encouraged to write in and complain.

It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked. You really should let me write your posts for you. It's the usual comments - Straw men - AD hominem - Hitler was not an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is not atheistic' (a bit like arguing Christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'atheism is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance.

You can find it here if you have forgotten http://richarddawkins.net/articleTrollComments,442,The-Trouble-with-Atheism,Rod-Liddle-Channel-4,page1
Strange that when I posted it on your website that you removed it several times and you threatened to ban me. That is fundie double standards in practice. Take the log out of your own eye and make yourself right with jesus (sad that i have to tell you how to live as a christian really. Maybe you prefer the old testament though, That allows you to rape hot virgins and marry them so that you can do it again and again and again (deut 22:28-29). I think that is disgusting, but that is the law of your god and you will defend it. For "fundies", atheists seem to have higher moral standards than you. No wonder the first 2 millenia were called the failed christian millenia

Boo hoo, we are labelled fundies by Dave. We just care about the truth and are passionate about it, and if being intolerant of idiotic comments from people who are not interested in debate - people who "know" they alone are right- makes me a fundie, then I am guilty. There is a big difference that you cant get through your thick skull though, and that is i think you should have the right to practice your superstition. However, your bile says that you should stine people who tell you to worship another god, and some of the comments on your site are down right hatefull of others of the same religion. Do you really think your "te quoque is actually a defense of any position? You are a RETARD I have had many discussions with christians that I can respect, but you are just a nasty narrow minded idiot that thankfully turns people away from your claims.

Tell me, why did you say homosexuality was wrong again - Fundie!

And I was actually talking £2.50 for all sales - including the ones from your wife to make you feel good

PS How's the family? they become atheists yet?
PPS when you do come back on site with another name, it would be helpful to put your own name in the text, so folk know not to waste their time on you

1186. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23225 by BillySands on February 27, 2007 at 2:34 am

hi lee,
For a guy who claims to be a hobbyist, you have the bibliophiles attitudes spot on. The assumption is that the bible must be true, therefore we will contort it in any way possible to harmonise it, or find that it supports evolution (except shaun and gbg). I think it is good to bring all this stuff up for the benefits of those who doubt what they believe, but I agree that to a dyed in the wool faith head, it makes no difference.
You are right about your nephew, and I remeber a minister else where on his site getting very upset that an arguement that a 10 year old could make undermined his position. in fact, his only response was that it was the arguement of a child.

The fossils are for gimbengoloin (or what ever his name is). I've had a long standing debate (over several threads) with him on evolution. I've been providing molecular/biochemical and anatomical evidence for him. He likes to focus on what we dont currently know as evidence that the theory is unsound. That however is just evidence that we do not know yet. He likes the idea of intelligent design, but his arguements are those from incredulity and ignorance. So, I thought that I am fed up with it now and have asked him to explain the fossil record. I previously asked him to write down in his own words why he refuses to believe that Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil - I am still waiting. With out having considered it for himself, his opinion is one of pure faith that it can not be, because the bible talks of a 6 day creation. I at least agree with him that evolution and the bible are mutually incompatible. Evolution does happen though

1187. Faith

Comment #23221 by BillySands on February 27, 2007 at 2:07 am

Riley
Nice comments on robetsons site. He sure is stupid. Everyone tells him to back up his claims and he cant. He quotes people he wants to agree with as if that is an arguement and denies any biblical problems, and likes nothing better than "ad homminem" and "te quoque". And this guy is a minister. It says alot about how much of your brain you have to shut down to believe. Reason is lost on him, but lets hope those of us who went on to his site have had an effect on his congregation.

Oh, and David if you are reading, I peronally know some free church members, and one says I have added to her considerable doubts - bit more and she will be an atheist - still, you can always lie to yourself and say she did not really want to believe in the first place. You can even pretend that your infanticidal sky feind has given her the gift of doubt that she may over come it - like I did - NOT!
How many have you converted on this site?
Like riley, I would encourage folk to go on Robertsons site (or others) There are people there waiting to be set free from the curse of faith

1188. Faith

Comment #23101 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 10:32 am

Scottishgeologist,
I wonder if wikipedia could put a picture of David Robertson in under fud (I think that's really funny it is in wikipedia)
He does have a face only a jackboot could love.
right, im off to help old ladies across the road in the name of atheism

1189. Faith

Comment #23092 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 8:48 am

How about "Robertsons revenge - how not to make an intelligent case against reality and reason - and look like a complete Fud* in the process"

* for non Scots, a Fud is an non flattering word for a stupid person that you want to compare to female genitalia

PS thanks for the compliment Van (i think) :-)

1190. Faith

Comment #23090 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 8:14 am

Oh Dear scottishgeologist,

I know what to use if I run out of toilet paper. I like the bit where it says that "When Richard Dawkins published 'The God Delusion', David Robertson wanted there to be an intelligent Christian response." If his posts are anything to go by, he has failed, and will deconvert more people.
Now, what was that that David said about Dawkins writing a book just to make money? I wonder what he will do with the massive £2.50 he gets for royalties. Perhaps he will put his wee baw bees in the kirk biscuit tin to buy some candles ( electric lights are not mentioned in the bible and are the work of the papists you know). Or perhaps he will exchange it all for a bag of magic beans or a packet of monster munch

1191. Faith

Comment #23068 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 5:10 am

Yorker,
stpetes definately is David Robertson.
comment 869 http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page18#comments

1192. Faith

Comment #23059 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 4:36 am

Mouthalmighty,
I have always thought of "Tu quoque" as the arguement of a petulant child that has nothing to offer, and is just an "intellectual term for "you smell of poo too".
It is true, that the poverty of the theists position is apparent when he claims that people will not be swayed by his arguement. Itis a presupposition that he is correct, and he expects you to come to his point of view. It never enters his head, that he is wrong. All any reasonable atheist wants in order to change his mind is some concrete evidence - like seeing god, finding a fossil with "god was here" written on it. Anything, other than a morally disgusting self contradictory and innaccurate book that says so.

1193. Faith

Comment #23054 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 3:59 am

Phonex,
St Petes is actually that troll David Robertson in disguse. Someone once said he had the intellectual capacity of road kill. Again that appears to be true.
He has actually said elsewhere that he is as certain of the resurrected jesus as he is of the existance of his own wife, and we are expected to believe he is open minded. Stop trying to drag atheism down to your level, or I will come back on your church site and create more doubters!

David, why do you never have anything constructive to say? All you do is set up atheist straw men. Do you have a problem in the trouser department? (as well as the thinking one) Is that why you need attention?

Why dont you remind us all again about how Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 are about jusus again - oh thats right, you cant, you just looked stupid and your "reasonable" faith was actually shown to be based on lies and was actually most definately an unreasonable one.
You are a godsend to atheists

1194. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #23051 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 3:28 am

Padster

Looks like the moonies are comming for a visit :-) I feel left out. They are ignoring me :-(

Seriously though, I wonder how they are going to twist your words.
I sent that review to the RDF. Hopefully they will post it and encourage others to bombard their site with ignorance busting reason and reality

1195. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #23048 by BillySands on February 26, 2007 at 3:23 am

Hi Lee
I agree with you. A book, even if it was consistant and historically accurate is not proof of the existance of god. However, if this so called perfect book is shown to be false - eg evolution or contradicts itself, or is full of contrived prophecies or those written after the event, then you effectively falseify that god. So as well as there being no evidence for yahweh, there is actually good evidence that he is a human invention. Mark (who is the originator of the thread )and Shaun try to claim that deut 28 is a prophecy about rome. If this were true, it would be some evidence of a god that predicts the future. However, there are lots of problems with their claims, and it is about Babylon (almost certainly written afterwards). This is why there has been lots of bible chat. Personally, I find it entertaining, but I am getting a bit fed up with gimlibengloin determination that evolution is wrong, and as I have pointed out, that even if it were wrong, it does not prove gods existance. Evolution does however occur and it disproves the bible.
With the exception of Mark and Shaun, who tried to provide some positive evidence (and failed) it seems that theists use the god of the gaps arguement a lot, which basically states "I cant explain it, it must be god" This is not a reason to justify the existance of god and is a submission to ignorance.
I need to spend a lot less time on this site.
GBG
I would be suprised if your answer contained anything that I have not heard before. I would however like your explanation as to why there are no humans amongst the earliest fossils and how different fossil groups appear and disapper at specific times.

1196. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #22821 by BillySands on February 23, 2007 at 10:57 am

Hi Ewan,
It was really just a letter, but they published 3 of them over a week, and it provoked disussion. Some muppet said that the country needed to get back to biblical moral teachings, and that would cut down teenage pregnancies etc. I just had to point out that Mary was a pregnant unmarried teenager and that the bible was full of disgusting moral values like stoneing homosexuals, promoting slavery and intolerance,and that the punishment for rapists was that they had to marry their victims. I also pointed out that morality is something innate and the result of natural selection. I also pointed out that the sumerians and confusious came up with decent moral values long before the bible. I even got a picture of Darwin published on his birthday and thanked him for destroying ignorant ceationist mythology and escaping his own indoctrination (just to fan the flames).
It was nice to see many outher atheists write in. A few christians wrote in to say bow before the cross. That made me laugh

1197. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22816 by BillySands on February 23, 2007 at 7:12 am

Nice one padster,
But you only really wrote that because deep down inside you know that despite all its contadiction, immorality, madness and inaccuracies, the bible is true and that Darth Vader is your father :-)

It will be interesting to read their reply. They never got back after I trashed their flood myth and pointed out that I an quite comfortable with myself :-(

Funny thing is, old gimpy thinks that article gave Dawkins a pasteing.

1198. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22788 by BillySands on February 22, 2007 at 9:10 am

Where oh where do theists get the notion that god sets moral standards? Oh yeah, the bible. Funny that people who have never heard of god make the same moral judgements as the less insane theists -I do of course discount the ones who believe that homosexuals/moabites/cananites etc are evil because the bible says so. There are no moral absolutes. A moral sence is something that natural selection has provided us with. The two main mechanisms are kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Our societal context dictates our moral values, and a selective pressure to conform to our society gives us our "morality" We don't commit murder willy nilly, because natural selection tends not to favour murderers - they usually get imprisoned or executed if they are casught. Contrary to what may appear obvious, not murdering is a selfish genetic strategy. We do not get cut off from society and our offspring do not have to be raised by just one parent. Their chance of survival is then increased (remember, we did not evolve in a welfare state). All moral acts can be similarly explained. We also seem to have an ability to be brainwashed too though, but thats ok when the rest of society is brainwashed also. Moral origins can be tested, and tests show it is an inherent human property (barring brain lesions - further underlying the physical nature of the mind, conscience and conciousness)

read this for an intro to moral origins http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/evolpsych.html
as well as the relevant chapter in TGD

Confusious came up with the golden rule 500 years before jesus "force not on others that which you do not choose for yourself", and the Sumerians preempted the turn the other cheek verse "Do not return evil to your adversary;

Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you,

Maintain justice for your enemy,

Be friendly to your enemy."

So says a 3rd millennium BCE text, "Counsels of Wisdom,"
Christianity offern nothing new, and the bible preaches intolerance of other faiths and groups - sounds more like the work of men rather than a morally pure god. Then again, maybe I am so removed from god that I cant see that xenophobia and killing children in the good old joshuah and egyptian plague ways are actually good acts

1199. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22768 by BillySands on February 22, 2007 at 2:51 am

bizzaro
"Being a full-time college student (biology major no less),"


YAAAAWWWWNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!


"I don't have the time to explain this, but all of the verses used to support these arguments are either taken out of their literal or historical context, or misinterpreted"

What, you mean like Matthew took Isaiah 7:14 out of context and mistranslated it, or that he also took Micah 5:2 out of context?
Slavery and murdering of your family for worshiping others gods is ALLWAYS wrong, no ifs buts or other pleas. As is making a rapist marry his victim, and stoning homosexuals. All this is the law of your god and the moral standards are his. Jesus often contradicts this insanity. However, he is not perfect either. He would not sell a jar of expensive perfume to help the poor Matt 26 " 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. 8 But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, "Why this waste? 9 "For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor." 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. 11 "For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me."
Nasty Jesus, it is allways about him, and we will allways have the poor, so stuff them. Yet, he knows this action is wrong: Matt 25:" 41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' 44 "Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' 45 "Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Richard said that Liberty students like you sould attend a proper university. However, I dont think you would get in.

Dr Billy (a "normal" Scotsman with a PhD from a proper university (Biochemistry no less))

PS I will ignore you from now on. It is the best thing for you, I dont think I should feed your delusion or your obvious insecurity and need at having to convince yourself of what you believe.

1200. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22766 by BillySands on February 22, 2007 at 2:32 am

"Crazy as it may sound, it's no joke."

Bloody hell! may the spaghetti monster have mercy on us all.

On gimplethingys recomendation I checked out this site
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900

I sent them this letter
What a thouroughly pathetic and biased site that is steeped in prejudice, ignorance and mythology. Your commentator on the doG delusion says that Dawkins is strongly anti religious, so he has a closed mind. Get real. Perhaps he is anti religious because he can see what rubbish it is. Not as funny as your claim that you stick to the infallible word of Dog. Now that is narrow, closed minded insanity!

Despite the fact that the greek translations had methusela surviving the flood and ezras sums in the LXX dont add up. What makes you think your version is ant less inerrant? What about versions where Micah 5:2 is translated "clans" not village, or Isaiah 7:14 where many translations reffer to a yound woman and not a virgin. Neither are about jesus antway (read in context) By the way, how come god punnished Adam an eve for sinning before they knew what was right and wrong? Nasty evil - god!

I could go on for ever, but I only have one brief shot at existence. I pity your lot - you probably think the flintstones are a documentary!

I got some bizzare reply about sin convicting me about gods existance and a pdf on how fossil ammonites prove the flood story.

"You expressed a lot of anger your email. If what we say were incorrect, there would be no cause for you to get so upset. Anger like yours is evidence of a conscience convicting you of sin. Deep down, you recognise that what we say makes sense and so you react angrily. If you find our material so upsetting, you have only to click your mouse to leave our website. Alternatively, you can face up to your fear and anger and admit that you are sinner and do something about it"

I put him right on all points.

Creationists are window licking loonies