Comments by MartinSGill

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

Comment #12689 by MartinSGill on December 13, 2006 at 9:22 am

Some excellent points on morality and ethics by Ewan D.

My ethics and morals can deal very well with those subject without turning into the monster you'd like to paint me, and all atheists.

Beasitialty: Wrong, because the animal can't give knowing consent. Basically you are abusing the animal and hence hurting it.

Paedophillia: Harder to answer, you need to define paedophillia. I don't think two consenting 14 years old's having sex are peadophiles, as our current law taints them. I do think a 60 year old marrying an 8 year old is disgusting, and wrong. But hten the church presided over enough of those weddings in it's lifetime that you have to wonder if the church endorses it. Before you start looking to society at large it might well be worth getting your own house in order. That there are peadophile priests I can understand, a certain percentage would be, what I can't understand is the Church hierarchy covering up for them. If you want something disgusting... that's it. Yes, you've implied you are not catholic, but in the end you all base your morals on the same thing.. the bible.

Euthenasia: If you made an animal suffer through what some people are made to suffer through because of medical conditions you'd be in jail for animal cruelty. I'd rather chose to die painlessly than suffer for years on end. Have you even read or seen what cancer suffers have to go through? It's foul. I'd question the morality, and certainly the compassion, of anyone that forced a person to prolong their suffering against their wishes. Euthenasia is certainly open to abuse, and needs to be carefully monitored and regulated, for the right reasons thought, it is most certainly moral.

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

Comment #12629 by MartinSGill on December 13, 2006 at 2:24 am

I always find it interesting that people who say the bible is false then go on to get very angry if their out of context misquotation is challenged. And why do you quote from the 16th century English version? Matthew 21 v. 21 is not a promise that God will give us whatever we ask for whatever. In the context it is talking about having faith in a real and living God who when we pray, according to his will (what he wants) then we receive. The slot machine view of God is never taught in the Bible. But sometimes you guys can be so simplistic and literalistic that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

I believe the bible is false. I don't have to justify my use of it. The point is that you and your religious contemporaries believe it is true.

Therefore the moment something in them can be shown to be false it supports my position and undermines yours.

If you don't accept the King James Version of the bible, then how can you decide just which bible is the correct one? But no matter.. they all seem to agree on this at least:

New International Version:

The Fig Tree Withers
18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.

21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

This IS the context. There is no more context. It even has a section heading. The previous section is Jesus arriving at the temple and the next section is Jesus authority questioned. This incident stand on its own.

Maybe you need some more evidence?

English Standard Version:

Jesus Curses the Fig Tree
18In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. 19And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once.

20When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?" 21And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. 22And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."

Contemporary English Version:

Jesus Puts a Curse on a Fig Tree

18When Jesus got up the next morning, he was hungry. He started out for the city, 19and along the way he saw a fig tree. But when he came to it, he found only leaves and no figs. So he told the tree, "You will never again grow any fruit!" Right then the fig tree dried up.

20The disciples were shocked when they saw how quickly the tree had dried up. 21But Jesus said to them, "If you have faith and don't doubt, I promise that you can do what I did to this tree. And you will be able to do even more. You can tell this mountain to get up and jump into the sea, and it will. 22If you have faith when you pray, you will be given whatever you ask for."

New Living Translation:

Jesus Curses the Fig Tree
18 In the morning, as Jesus was returning to Jerusalem, he was hungry, 19 and he noticed a fig tree beside the road. He went over to see if there were any figs, but there were only leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" And immediately the fig tree withered up.

20 The disciples were amazed when they saw this and asked, "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?"

21 Then Jesus told them, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and don't doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, 'May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and it will happen. 22 You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it."

How many more versions of the bible must I quote.. with full context before you accept that you are talking a load of bollocks?

Please... tell me which version of the bible you use so that I can quote from the "correct" version. Is it one you've compiled yourself?

Edited: To improve formatting.

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

Comment #12470 by MartinSGill on December 12, 2006 at 4:46 am

Billy, you mis-quoted... shame on you.

"Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more catholics"

O wait.. what's that noise?

"Oh, the must be the Catholics next door." (Look of outrage from aunt) "I'll just go burn them.".

Guy Fawkes... the world's (well, England's) most infamous Christian terrorist. The Osama Bin Laden of his age. He's around that time isn't he... or was he later?

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

Comment #12456 by MartinSGill on December 12, 2006 at 3:35 am

But in a good democratic Protestant tradition we do not have a 'head'. Indeed there is a strong case to be argued that without Protestantism there would have been no democracy…

You're not a good historian if you think that. Democracy existed in Greece long before Christianity. Protestant beliefs may have encouraged democracy to be adopted in England, but I couldn't say. I'd argue that democracy happened regardless. The oldest known democracy surviving is iceland and their traditions (at the time at least) are not christian let alone protestant. I begin to doubt more and more your claim to be an historian.

The country held up as the leading democracy in the world is the USA, and it has been proven that the founding fathers, the shapers and builders of that democracy were atheists, agnostics and/or deists and most certainly secular.

I must admit I haven't come across any Christians who believe in polygamy. I guess you move in wider circles.

I doubt it. The difference is, I'd argue, that I understand religion better, as is usually the case for an outside observer. I was certain that there had to be Christian polygamists and I was certain they used the bible to justify their views, just as you justify your own. It only took a very quick internet search to find what I wanted.

The fact that is was so easy to find further supports my view that the bible can be used to justify anything you want.

I am not sure whether you are deliberately distorting or just misunderstanding. I believe it is wrong to be unfaithful BECAUSE the bible says so. I believe that God knows best when it comes to human beings and morality and I am quite happy to bow to the makers superior wisdom.

I believe it is wrong to be unfaithful because of my own convictions, as do many others that are atheist and non christian. Hence the bible is not the source of that moral, because otherwise all those 4 billion non Christians would not be similarly inclined. Hence my point stands and it is you that is being "deliberately distorting or just misunderstanding". You have causality the wrong way around. The moral is there regardless, the bible just says the same thing and therefore you seem to think that the moral came from the bible when that is obviously not the case.

One other point. We are talking about being faithful, not about sleeping around. If my partner approved of me sleeping around and I approved of her sleeping around then I wouldn't have any problems with it.

Atheism and humanism are all about tolerance. The guiding factor is that you don't hurt others. Whatever is acceptable and enjoyable to both me and my partner is what we do. That is called consideration and respect.

Our options are only limited by our own feelings and views. Your options are further limited by what people thought was right 2000 years ago.

What right do you have to impose your morality on other people?

None whatsoever. Hence I think polygamy should be legal, as well as gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research etc.

Even if I didn't agree with them, and I don't agree with polygamy, that does not give me the right to impose my morality, my views, on others, as religion does.

It is religion that tries to impose morality on us and always has.

For example there are aspects of morality in modern society that I completely reject. You on the other hand seem to be a conformist. I prefer to be a radical.

Again, you appear to have things the wrong way around. Religion, much to my irritation, is still the conformists way.

I make my mind up about everything myself. I don't conform to what is written in some 2000 year old rag unless I personally believe it to be correct.

By the sound of your posts your radicalism is towards the elimination of freedoms. Conform to 2000 year old standard. My own radicalism is towards the expansion of freedoms, to allow people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others.

Religion, especially the upsurge in radical religion, is hurting people and society. I can see that and so can many others. I suspect even you can see it. Religion needs to be curbed. It's brainwashing aspects need to be removed.

I don't want it banned though, that goes against my principles, despite the fact that I think it's a load of bollocks. For the same reason I don't want football banned, since I think that's a load of bollocks as well. Being anti-football in this country is almost as dangerous as being anti religion in the US.

"I do not believe genealogy to have been any more important to the average Jew in the 1st century than it is today."

But what you 'believe' is irrelevant. It is what is true that counts. You don't want to believe that because it does not suit your argument. But I'm afraid that the evidence is that genealogy was very important in 1st century Judaism.

A pathetic deflection. You totally ignored my follow on sentence that requested evidence of your belief. Hence, I use your own sentence against you: what you believe is irrelevant, it is what is true that counts.

It's a shame you are too narrow minded to apply that maxim to the bible and religion, which is patently untrue and has been shown to be so almost continuously for the past 2000 years, in point of fact, every time science discovered something new.

The world was not created in 7 days. It was not created 6000 years ago. There was no world encompassing flood. The earth is not the centre of the universe, nor is it flat. Man and woman did not suddenly appear, we evolved.

Then there is the fact that historians and theologians have been arguing about the authenticity of texts ever since they were first written down.

Why are there so many different bibles? Why do some Christian sects include more texts in their bible than others? The truth is that there has been so much manipulation and fabrication in the bible that finding any actual truth becomes highly improbable.

One tiny flaw in this argument. Jesus never said such a thing and the Bible never says he did. Basic rule of interpretation number 1 – make sure that you are actually interpreting what is there not what you wish was there, or what you have heard was there.

You sir are a liar! Either that or you really have never actually read the bible. It seems you are the one to "make sure that you are actually interpreting what is there not what you wish was there, or what you have heard was there." or in your case heard what isn't there!

Matthew 21, King James Version:

21Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

22And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Whats wrong with literature? I regard communicaton and the spoken word as one of the greatest things we have and something that distinguishes us from the animals. God revealing himself through the written and spoken word.

There is nothing wrong with literature. I enjoy it quite a lot. Don't be arrogant, animals have been taught to read simple things, sometimes only shapes, but that's all reading is. Children also need to be taught to read, so that doesn't make them any different from animals. The only difference is that humans are better suited to being able to learn to read. We are better tool users that's all. God has nothing to do with it.

Wales can communicate over entire oceans, maybe even over the entire globe, we need tools to do the same. The communication in wolves is outstanding as in many other animals, as is their social behaviour. Some animals communicate in extremely complex ways. We don't have a monopoly on that. Again, we are just slightly better at it.

The only thing revealed through the written word is the author that wrote it and the details of the time he wrote it in and God certainly didn't write the bible, people did.

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

Comment #12188 by MartinSGill on December 11, 2006 at 5:29 am

To address a specific point I accidentally skipped:

I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife [...]. I cannot see any substantial reason for believing that other than the Bible.

My condolences. I on the other hand can see lots of reasons for not sleeping around that have nothing to do with the bible.

First and foremost is loyalty, followed by respect for my partner. Those are the emotional reasons.

There are practical reasons as well, not least in that is it easier to be a good husband to a single wife than it is to be a good husband to many wives.

None of this requires the bible, and anyone who "cannot see any substantial reason for believing that other than the Bible" is in my view a poorer person for it.

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

Comment #12185 by MartinSGill on December 11, 2006 at 5:17 am

Oh dear, Dave is resorting to Ad Hominem again.

Thanks for the recommendation. I think I will order Fox's book – although I suspect it is no different from others I have in a similar genre.

You're welcome. I hope you enjoy it, although I suspect that like others you will reject conflicts with your view based on your belief and not on the evidence.

Let me see. You think all religions are stupid and deceitful and you think that this is tolerant! If I say that two and two is five should I be tolerated as a good mathematician. If I make the bible say whatever I want should I be tolerated as a good theologian?

Ad Hominem, again! Tut Tut David.

Don't put words in my mouth to support your own flawed arguments. I consider religion to be extremely intelligent, it has to be to have survived as long as it has. But you are correct in that I think it is deceitful.

I can respect religion for what it can do, despite being vehemently opposed to what it does. In the same way I can respect a charismatic tyrant's amazing skill manipulating a crowd while loathing the guy for what he does with that skill.

You're considered a good theologian if you get the bible to agree with what the head of your religious order says is truth. If you as a theologian disagree you run the risk of being labelled a heretic and excommunicated.

Just ask Copernicus and Galileo what happens if you disagree with accepted religious views. Or that catholic cardinal/bishop(?) who was recently excommunicated for ordaining married men. Or the Spanish Inquisition where you correctly pointed out that those people that wanted to read the bible and see the message for themselves were hunted down and tortured/killed.

That moral sense has been perverted and what the Bible does is redirect it towards the absolute source, God. In terms of proof that I get my own personal morals from the Bible – let me give you one example. I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right. I cannot see any substantial reason for believing that other than the Bible.

You're moral sense might be perverted and in need of salvation, but mine isn't, but thank you for providing proof of my assertion. You believe it is wrong to be unfaithful. And.. you are greatly pleased to discover that the bible says the same thing. Hurray... you must be doing the will of God.

Those Christians that believe in polygamy like to quote this passage from Matthew 25 to support their beliefs:

1. "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2. Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
3. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them.
4. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps.
5. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6. "At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'
7. "Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps.
8. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'
9. " 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'
10. "But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11. "Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'
12. "But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'
13. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

They believe that polygamy is right and that Jesus had no problem with it. Hence the parable about the man who slept with and married the 5 virgins.

Your morals are shaped by society. Your religious conviction is what allows you to find confirmation of your morality in the bible and explain away those parts that disagree with your morality.

Are those Christians not stupid and deceitful as you stated? They made the bible say what they wanted, just as you make the bible say what you want.

This is the difficulty in reading things through the cultural lens of 21st century Western World. Family trees were essential and vital to Jews of the 1st century. Please do not allow either chronological or cultural snobbery (what's wrong with carpentars?) to distort your judgement.

Granted it is hard for us to know what the cultural context of the words from so long ago might mean. That of course should be an even more convincing argument that the bible should not be trusted.

Why do you see insults where there are none? I mentioned carpenters because that was a common yet also highly skilled profession, possibly akin to an engineer or doctor in our current society. The point is thought that while a good profession a carpenter is not a significant person. Lineage of kings and princes one might accept as being carefully recorded, but not everyone is that important.

I do not believe genealogy to have been any more important to the average Jew in the 1st century than it is today. Only for the sake of the so-called prophecies is the descent from David important. If I am wrong please provide me some references that show otherwise.

In the simplistic literalist world that you live in, But meanwhile back on planet earth….

Ad Hominem, again! Tut Tut David.

It's ironic that you should call me a literalist when your entire foundation for belief in a god is a work of literature.

The single most disingenuous and deceitful tactic that theists use is the notion that what is written in the bible needs to be interpreted. To paraphrase your comments... please do not allow either educational or cultural snobbery to distort your reading of the bible.

The bible was written for everyone, as the word of god (if it is such) should be, therefore one would expect it to have been aimed at knowledge and comprehension level of the lowest common reader, hence the use of parables as examples, to try and relate otherwise complex (for the time) teachings into simple forms.

When Jesus says to his followers that all their prayers will be answered, then are we to assume that the crowd all went home thinking "hmm... He obviously didn't mean that literally, there must be a deeper meaning there." The fallacy in that view should be obvious, most people would have gone home thinking "Cool, if I follow this guy I'll get my prayers answered."

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

Comment #12159 by MartinSGill on December 11, 2006 at 1:42 am

Haven't come across Eusebius.

The one criticism I have to level at the book is that it is very compact, with lots of information to absorb, especially for someone like myself who has a working knowledge of the bible but has not studied it exhaustively, so I sometimes miss some of the references, and lose the significance of what is said.

I did discover on the train this morning though that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", was added in the 4th century ce. This is indicated by the abrupt change of style and flow in the passage itself, but also, more tellingly, by the fact that earlier versions of the text from the 170's ce do not mention this passage at all.

While the passage is certainly in line with contemporary views of Christian teachings, it almost certainly was not said by Jesus, and the entire incident might well have been fabricated.

Ok enough about Fox... this thread is getting a bit off topic I think :)

108. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12157 by MartinSGill on December 11, 2006 at 1:27 am

I wrote an email to Leeds university. I doubt it will have much impact, but maybe on more email will be enough to break the creationist's back.

I quoted the press release and enquired how the university could justify their claim that his views did not impact on his role as professor of thermodynamics.

I hope it does some good, but I doubt it.

109. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12103 by MartinSGill on December 10, 2006 at 3:29 pm

Only over half way through but Richard is at his very best and the poor idiot from Leeds Uni is being slaughtered.

Richard has him stating on public radio that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I rather hope the guy loses his job as a result.

The museum in the US just makes me sick. If I were a theists i'd call for it to be fire bombed, but I'm an atheist so I just shake my head.

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

Comment #12093 by MartinSGill on December 10, 2006 at 2:08 pm

Ireneaus is mentioned. He's the first recorded person c. 180 ce to have names Luke's gospel.

A contemporary of his is mentioned as an example of how common place the forging of christian letters and documents was at the time. Ignatieus, the Bishop of Antioch (c 110ce), had a number of his letters "expanded" by fakes, whose authenticity (or rather lack thereof) wasn't finally accapted until 1646. (p130 of Unauthrosed Version, penguin 2006 ed.).

Fox goes on to mention many more examples of christian writings of the time being faked/amended. Not withstanding an acknowledge great scholar of Matthews gospel (GD Kilpatrick, 1946) claiming "the suggestion of deliberate pseudonymity on the part of the evangelist need not cause us qaulms", in effect accepting that Matthews gospel was most certainly not written by Matthew. Kilpatrick goes on to claim forgeries were accepted at the time, which Fox goes on to refute rather nicely with examples of how christians reacted to fakes with christian bishops deposing a christian who "out of love of Paul" created false "Acts of Paul and Thecla" in the 2nd century ce.

And all of that from just selected from 4 pages of the book :P

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

Comment #12086 by MartinSGill on December 10, 2006 at 11:30 am

I'm still reading Robin Lane Fox's Unauthorised Version and it's an excellent book.

It actually has some positive reviews by christian newspapers as well, which I think is rather telling.

I'm actually learning rather alot about the origins and authenticity of the bible. While it confirms many of my views that the bible is mostly manufactured, it's also really interesting in revealing which parts of it are probably mostly accurate and also how and who changed the bible. Fox does a good job of not claiming knowledge over the motivations of the editors, merely that they did the editing.

I strongly recommend it to our co-debater Rev. Roberston, as an historian himself he might appreciate the work of a highly respected authority in ancient history more than a simple layman like myself.

While I was always sure that all the gospels were pretty much manufactured, I was rather suprised to learn that John's at least was probably originally written by the disciple. The others, Fox claims, were annonymous and matthew, commonly believed to be the first of the gospels is probably contrived and based upon the work of "Mark", who's authorship itself cannot be determined and likely was anonymous.

It's like reading a detective novel... who the hell wrote the gospels (and the rest of the bible)?

I think I also now understand why David claims Luke as an historian. He may very well have been a chronicler at least. While the name "Luke" itself is uncertain and the work orginally probably annonymous, Fox is certain that Luke was a companion of Paul's and certainly not an original disciple, in that sense David is right, he is an historian, having no first hand knowledge of the events he's writing about.

The fact that Matthew's gospel (certainly the name of the author) may be a deliberate deceit, might also explain the difference in the genaeologies between Matthew and Luke. Matthew's at least is probably fake.

That still doesn't explain how Luke got his information. Which carpenter knows is family tree to 20+ generations? I don't think somerset house existed in those days, and even somerset house can't trace 20+ generations back for most people.

In any case, Fox's book makes realy interesting reading.

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

Comment #12010 by MartinSGill on December 9, 2006 at 8:20 am

Prove that the Spanish Inquisition got its morals from the Bible.

Prove that you do.

There may be some truth in that – perhaps God is on the side of the poor.

If god were on the side of the poor, he'd not let them suffer that much. What a cock-eyed view of the world you have. Your all merciful fairy doesn't appear to be showing much mercy to the people on who's side you just suggested he's on.

The explination is much simpler you'll find. The poor have no one else to turn to, so they look to an imaginary friend. They look to something that will give them hope, a promise that what they are going through isn't the sum of their life.

The reason the rich and middle class don't need god as much is because they have less to worry about and have less need on imaginary friend to bother with all their problems and beg for help.

"And that's the point. The bible can be made to say anything you want it to say"

Only if you are stupid or deceitful.

I see. Your lack of tolerance finally shows itself for what it is, and you prove my earlier point that religion is inclusive and hence anything but tolerant.

By your definition then anyone that does not read in the bible what you do is "stupid and deceitful".

Basically every single christian sect that does not align its views with your own is "stupid and deceitful". Don't agree with the pope? well... he's "stupid and deceitful". Don't agree with greek orthodoxy? Well, they're stupid and deceitful.

The very reason there are so many different christian sects is because of fact that the bible is totally ambiguous. If it weren't then people wouldn't be argueing about it, or in ages past fighting wars about it.

There would also not be a dozen different modern versions of it.

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

Comment #11942 by MartinSGill on December 8, 2006 at 11:28 am

No – and I don't think it does. Simplistic correlations just do not work like that for me.

Just because a correlation "do[es] not work" for you doesn't mean it isn't true or correct. Discarding the evidence as simplistic is no different then discarding your belief in the bible as simplistic.

Of course, the next thing you'll say is that simplistic correlations like temperature with pressure "do not work" for you.

Just because the correlation doesn't fit into your world view doesn't mean it doesn't need explination. Religion my not be one of the prime variables in the correlation, maybe it's a side effect or a sympathetic variable. The true correlation could be with social deprivation, poverty or lack of education. With the exception of the USA the most religious countries in teh world tend to be the poorer countries, look at the african continent. High rates of religion, high rates of poverty, crime (civial wars, war lords etc).

The while you certainly cannot say with certainty that it's religion that leads to crime, teh fact that where ever you find high crime rates and high poverty and deprivation you also find high rates of religion.

Could it be that religion is no more than a comfort blankt then? When there is trouble when the situation is dire, people can't run to mummy, so they run to their imaginary friend god. Afterall he promises that no matter how bad life is here, it will be wonderful once you're dead.

Sorry. The Spanish Inquisition was not moral in the sense that it followed biblical morality. I thought that was what we were discussing. In the sense that you write above – everything and everyone is moral.!

Rubbish. The inquisators were perfectly moral as decreed by the church, and the church got it's morals from the same place you do, the bible and your own moral sense.

The fact that the bible is used to justify people's bigotry and that they believe they are doing what is "morally" right lends massive weight to the notion that morals come from society and from nurture. The only reason you don't stand outside abortion clinics with stupid plackards or a gun in your hand is that you were taught the bible in a different way.

And that's the point. The bible can be made to say anything you want it to say, all you have to do is pick those passages you want, put just the emphasis you want on those passages that suit your own bigotry or lack thereof. The bible is useless as a guide ot anything, because it can mean anything, be used to justify anything.

You could argue that the church of the spanish inquisition was smarter than you. They at least it seems accepted that this was the case, and therefore didn't want people reading the bible, that way people would believe what they are told, and not be able to read the bible and realise that it says whatever they want it to say.

Do you, like most christians, claim your moral sense comes from God? If so, why then is your moral sense different to that of people 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago? Slavery was ok, the predudice againsts gays, women, non-believers, the beastial punishments given to people for almost trivial offences. The rape and murder of women and childern, as ordered by god in the old testment?

If someone ordered that that today, to you, would you do it? I'd certainly hope not. Maybe the moral sense god handed out 1000 years ago is different and he had to change it to get it right. Of course, that can't be, since god is perfect, and it should have been perfect to start with. So why do people now have a different moral sense?

In contrast to religion I actually think my moral sense comes from society around me, nurture and to some extent also from evolution.

The difference as I see it between religious "moderates" and religious "fundamentalists" is that the fundamentalists reject our current morals and want to follow the morals of a bye-gone age, and they can use the bible to support their view. If the bible really is the word of god and the our moral sense comes from god, then why do their morals and yours differ? Or maybe you do support the murder of doctors? I doubt it.

Both you and the spanish inquisators and the crusaders and the witch burners and the slavers and all the other bigots in history, the warriors that raped and murdered in god's name, the people that cheered at the punishments and threw the stones with all the others, had access to the same bible you have and to the same god-given sense of morality that you have, yet they were no where near moral by our own standards.

I'd argue that the only possible conclusion is that morals are shaped by society, and nurture.

If then our morality comes not from the bible, or are all Indians immoral by default since they don't believe in the bible, and our moral sense does not come from god, what use is the bible as anything other than literature?

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

Comment #11928 by MartinSGill on December 8, 2006 at 8:27 am

Blast... the comment system seems to have lost my post.. and it was such a wonderful post. It would have converted all the world instantly.

Instead.. i'll have to write it again.. and it will be a mere smidgen of the post it was.

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

Comment #11906 by MartinSGill on December 8, 2006 at 6:17 am

Dave,

Thank you for your one sentence answer to my points.

While I am sure we can continue to debate the causes of the reformation, I am glad that you have accepted implicitly that Sweden is a majority atheists nation and that it survives extremely well without the need for any religious delusions.

The corollary of that is that you accept my initial assertion of a negative correlation between the morality (criminality) of a country and religious adherence. Can you therefore explain to me why religion appears to encourage crime?

Of course religion might not be the actual reason for the crime rate. Social deprivation and lack of education et al can also be causes. Again are these caused by religion or is religion a result thereof? With the exception of the USA the most religious nations are also some of the poorest, take the strength of religion in Africa for example.

This leads to questions of causality. Either religion encourages crime, or religion is the result of crime. Which is it?

You mentioned that the Spanish inquisition wasn't moral. I beg to differ. The inquisition was moral. It was highly moral, as was keeping slaves and all sorts of other things. The point is that societies morals change. The Spanish inquisition did all it could to prevent herecy and in particular, as you pointed out, they pursued people that wanted to read the bible. This was because reading the bible lead to herecy; people questioning the church, and since the church represented god, by questioning the church people questioned god. The inquisitors were therefore on solid moral ground in their pursuit of these heretics, morals provided by the church and hence god!

Our morals do not come from the bible. If our current morals did then the last 2000 years of religious slaughter/persecution would not have happened since those people also had access to the same text we have and should therefore have drawn the same conclusions. Unless of course the text was so meaningless and vague as to allow any conclusion you want, which given the way religion and the bible has been and is being used to justify anything you want from creationism to murdering doctors, the suppression/exclusion of gays and a myriad of other very current issues, is probably the most likely conclusion.

I congratulate you on being a sufficiently decent human that when you read the bible and believed in its nonsense you at least retained your humanism and didn't succumb, like so many of your contemporaries, to its seductive approval of all your prejudices.