1451. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #18030 by BillySands on January 18, 2007 at 2:45 am

I wonder why Theo seems to ignore verifiable and reproducible radioactive decay as as a means of dating in favour of a set of myths from an ancient tribal culture. THAT IS NOT VERY REASONABLE.
I have asked this many times, can anyone produce any positive evidence of the existance of any gods that are not open to liberal and contrived interpretation, or appeal to current gaps in our knowledge? The bible is no evidence. Even if it was historically true (and it isn't), that fails to produce verifiable evidence - afterall, anyone can make up a historically accurate book and invent a god for it. Your messianic prophecies all fail too (read earlier discussion about micah 5:2 and the virgin birth - I'm not going over it again. So, were is the evidence? All I hear from some is an arguement from incredulity, and from others, some wild interpretations that are far from clear and apply to Babylon and not Rome. Would the real God please make himself known?

1452. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #17645 by BillySands on January 15, 2007 at 9:14 am

Hi Fedler,
I think I'll skip Davids next article, but from what you say, he seems to overlook the changing morality of his own bible/religion. Why do christians not stone people for the slightest misdemeaners any more?
My personal view of morality is that it is not concerned with an absolute right or wrong, but with what is good for the individual. Biologically, murder for example, would be wrong because if you are caught, your own reproductive fitness is compromised (jail/cut off from society/executed), so there is a good evolutionary advantage in not murdering (and you will be less likely to be murdered too). It is a similar story with a lot of moral issues.
I wonder if David feelks that he has the free will to be attracted to another man - I know I couldn't, and many homosexuals cant choose to be attracted to the opposite sex either. In fruit flies, there is a gene (called fruitless) that determines male sexual orientation - we can make homosexual flies in the lab. There is growing exidence for genetic involvement in humans here too. Predisposition to some mental ilnesses and agression seem to have a genetic basis too, with isoforms of the dopamine receptor being implicated.
It seems to me that the "bad" aspects of human behaviour are totally explainable in darwinian terms, and the "good" ones can be largely explained in terms of kin selection and reciprocal altruism.
The bible is a book of disgusting moral values, with only a few good bits (that other religions came up with first). I feel sorry for people like David who think they need a book to tell them right from wrong (Rom 7:7?). The rest uf us non christians seem to know better without it. The most immoral people I know are actually christians - I think they think it is OK to do whatever they want, because they are deluded into thinking god will forgive them. I like to think I do my best to undo any wrongs I do to people, not so with some christians I know (not all).

Out of interest, did David produce any evidence this time? What about his reason for believing in moral absolutes? These are kind of rhetorical, because I can guess the answer.

1453. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #17615 by BillySands on January 15, 2007 at 5:46 am

just time for a quick observation. When you ask a theist why god doesn't just reveal himself and settle the issue of his existance, you get a whole load of bizarre answers as to why "he" doesn't. So, the point is if god doesn't want to reveal himself to sceptics, then why are there so many people trying to argue a case for him then? If you believe he is real, but will not show himself to us, then why do theists bother to try and "prove" his existance to us?

1454. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #17023 by BillySands on January 10, 2007 at 6:21 am

Shame on you, David Robertson. Not only have you once again appealed to authority, but you have cherry-picked just the first part of Darwin's quote, and failed to record his later reasoning, which led to his agnosticism.

Oh dear David....
Well spotted Paul. That is a common trick by theists to try and make a point. That is why I questioned his connway morris quote, to call his bluff. i'm sure he has not read that either. It displays that David has not read about the subject and is just swallowing what someone told him. Someone who he wants to believe. Not a very critical or honest way of looking at things, and just confirms that David knows the answer he wants regardless of the evidence.
The alternative is that he has read it in context, and he is either thick or a liar with an intention to decieve. Either way, it is pretty shameful and intellectually dishonest of him. With such a lack of critical thinking and blindly swallowing the words of others, it is easy to see why he has not left his childhood delusion of god behind him.
Work commitments mean I wont be around much (and the people on Davids site can have some peace too), but David you have clearly shown me all that was wrong with my former theism, so thanks and keep up the good work for Dawkins

1455. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #17022 by BillySands on January 10, 2007 at 6:06 am

Guys,
Due to work commitments etc, this will be my last post for a while - I'm sure some of you will be very sad. If anyone really wants a point answered, I think my email should alert me to any PMs that you may send.
Theo
"Wouldn't that require intelligent design?"

Told you that you would shift the goal posts! And no, it does not nessecitate ID, it would just show we can copy what is already there. I think creating a cell would prove only that. I think we would need a long time to let one evolve though, so start off the experiment and wake me in one billion years time. Same point to Ben Dover


"I think E=MC2 shows matter/ energy is not everlasting.


Not only that, I just remembered the concept of anti matter! Silly me!"

You'll be an atheist again soon enough


Your special appeal to a designer makes your hypothesis even more unlikely by adding even more complexity (the need to explain the existance of a complex designer). It is strange that you realise the difficulty of this approach in any possible pan-spermia explanation, but ignore it when hypothesising a designer.


If indeed there was a creator, the next question would be who created the creator, obviously someone with greater power and intelligence. And who created that creator? It would also have to be someone with greater power and intelligence, and so it would keep on going where it would point to a being possessing infinite qualities, an eternal ultimate creator. Which just so happen to be type of Being described in the bible.

No it wouldn't. Why not just state matter always existed with that logic? and cut out the added complexity of a god. This sounds very much like an arguement from incredulity, and as such has no weight to it

Mark
You still don't seem to have acknowledged that, irrespective of the precise meaning of the Hebrew word, Isaiah 36:11 prevents application of Deut 28:49 to Aramaic-speaking invaders, even city-besieging ones: "we understand it" explicitly contradicts "you will not understand". Deuteronomy 28:49-57, which is all one description of a specific invader, therefore cannot apply to Babylon.

A couple of ponts here, the word conveys clarity (like obscure regional variations btw there are dundonians and there are dundonians). Isaiah also does not tell you if all on the wall could understand it (thought Babylonians spoke Akkadian anyway. Read Lammentations, There it talks about all the points you make and ascribes them to Babylon - described as far away, mentions cannabalism etc etc.

1456. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16557 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 10:19 am

Mark, Thought you may be interested in this:
"Babylon is scripturally described as the great eagle with a head of gold. Babylon is the great eagle that comes unto Lebanon, with another great eagle shooting forth her branches in Ezekiel 17. The king of Babylon comes to Jerusalem and takes the king and the princes and leads them with him to Babylon. "Behold you among the heathen and regard and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which you will not believe, though it will be told you. For lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess... they are terrible and dreadful... horses swifter than leopards... fly as the eagle... come all for violence: their face shall sup up as the east wind... scoff at kings. Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, imputing this his power unto his god."

1457. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16544 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 9:27 am

Hi Mark,

Was actually thinking about greek when I made the aramaic comment (was thinking about Antiochus IV at the time) DOH!
However, the word to understand "shama" is defined thus: a primitive root; to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc.; causatively, to tell, etc.). That is not at variance with the fact that daniel still had to learn the language of babylon. Although I speak the same language as the, I dont understand Dundonians, so the same word could be used here. Ever Read any Robert Burns, and how much sense does it make to you?
I still dont buy the eagle though. It just is not specific ennough. I still go with babylon

1458. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #16536 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 7:28 am

Posted this response to his recent article on davids site
Oh dear, David is preaching to the converted again, as usual, I find that I can not bear to read his poor quality criticisms for any length of time.

Let me set you straight, Dawkins' argument of religion being a by product of other pshychological processes does not depend on his proof that god does not exist. If we make a massively illogical assumption that your god alone exists (we have at least 33 million to chose from), then we still have to explain why people have devoted time etc to 33 million other gods, who in your monotheistic view are false and therefore, their worship is pointless. Dawkins backs up his claims with experimental studies. Other than the fact you don't like what he has to say, what do you have to back up your beliefs?
to quote from Martin's signature
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Henry Roberts, Historian, (1901-71)

Perhaps, you could actually quote conway morris in context. You seem to personally think we should bow to the authority of experts in their field (as long as the agree with you), so what does a paleontologist know about anthropology? I'll bet it is taken out of context too. Dawkins is an expert in his field and says you are wrong. Hmmm, how do we decide who is correct? I know, evaluate the evidence for ourselves. This is a general deficiency in your articles and discussion with you on the RDF. PRESENT EVIDENCE. Rational people decide for themselves, and not believe because someone else says so (waits for predictable ad hominem)

Why would atheism be a meme?

Again, you ignore evidence and just dismiss off hand.

How do you explain other religion existing, if not through cultural inheritance?

Poor stuff Dave. I may deal with the rest later

Readers may wish to see how badly David's arguments are doing on the Dawkins site for yourself. Some of the people on this site have a better grasp of the subject and a better manner than David. Feel free to come on the threads for yourself. Be respectful and atheists will generally respect you (no guarantees though)
http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson
http://richarddawkins.net/article,460,10-myths---and-10-truths---about-atheism,Sam-Harris

Sorry if this seems harsh, but at least it is an honest evaluation

1459. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16531 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 6:05 am

"Unicorns are only found in the king james version"

They are also in the WBS. It also mentions other mythical creatures like leviathon and behemoth

1460. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16528 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 5:53 am

gimlibengloin
"Nothing would persuade me to give it mate but please don't take that personally."

Dony worry I wont. Do I know you? or is it something embarrasing like seymour Butts? :-)

"I have to confess that I havn't read your responses yet to my last post as "Jack Sparrow" before the website changed its posting rules."

Thanks a lot! I put a lot of effort into them. I have noticed this before. Is there really any point?

"However, the evolutionist Steven M Stanley wrote, "in the absence of a fossil record...we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis" [p2].
So Stanley asserts that only fossil evidence makes the theory anything worth considering. Yet on page 39 he admits, "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid" (Macroevolution:Pattern and Progress)"

Well, if you read my posts!......
First point, I have said this before, don't quote others, provide evdence How old is the quote? I have had 150 year old quotes from Darwin used as "evidence" against evolution.
Second, i have referred you to molecular evidence in the past! There is also the evidence of homology and ontogeny too - read my posts and links, or I wont bother wasting my time!

Theo
"Oh! really! so science HAS produced a living self-replicating cell from raw chemicals? So life really originated by spontaneous generation...wow.
can you give me evidence of this?...please?"

You miss the point. Nothing has been refuted. We can make the appropriate molecules though. Just because it hasn't been done yet is not a refutation (and when we do, you will move the goal posts again) Can you personally build a computer from sand, malachite and ethylene? no? others can. You just dont know how to.

"Even if that were so, it would not justify my claim but would make it on par with what some scientists claim. Although nonsensical, I could ask a reverse of of the question as is there any evidence that verifies that that matter always existed.


Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy - Scientifically Matter/Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

If this law as changed recently please let me know"

This is a straw man. You make as assumption that all scientists believe energy/matter always existed (this is not true) and I think E=MC2 shows matter/ energy is not everlasting.

Your special appeal to a designer makes your hypothesis even more unlikely by adding even more complexity (the need to explain the existance of a complex designer). It is strange that you realise the difficulty of this approach in any possible pan-spermia explanation, but ignore it when hypothesising a designer.

1461. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16197 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:37 pm

"I presume your referring to "Jack Sparrow" who I did post under until the website changed its rules of admission. One has to learn from others mistakes as well as one's own and a pseudonym is certainly an effective way of distancing oneself from any insults and makes posting less stressful. I suspect this is why atheists also post under pseudonyms eg Phlogiston, goddogit, satanhimself etc."


Hallellujah, god did actually give me the gift of prophecy after all, now all I need is the gift of healing that I asked for :-)

Seriously what's your real name?

1462. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #16193 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Hey David,
What a lot of evasive hot air. Again you try and appeal to the authority of others. If you dont understand torbjorns comments, how can you refute them? oh that's right, you didn't, you apeal to authority. Why not take some time to understand it and think about it. You clearly are the one who knows what answer he wants, but cant defend his position. Why do you bother? how many wavering theists is that now that you are sending towards atheism. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK
Nor do you get paul's point either. Your answer would embarass a child. BY ASKING FOR EVIDENCE OF AD HOMENEMS, YOU REALLY ARE SETTING YOURSELF UP HERE. It is becoming painful to watch.
I see your church are considering shutting down their message board because you want to pretend to have a nice public image. Why give folk a false impression? that's dishonest

1463. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16192 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Theo, read this on the flood
http://www.google.com/custom?q=flood&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org

"I can't 'prove' that a Brahmin does not exist but then their seems to be no reason to suppose that he does. Even Hindus give up on any pretence to historical validity in their scriptures. This is not so with the New Testament where historians have used it with success in historical reconstruction and research."

Josphus is generally acurate,afterall, he places the census of quirinius 8 years after the death of herod
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

1464. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16187 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 11:54 am

gimlibengloin
"I am still waiting for proofthat Brahmin does not exist"

Thats absurd. We were discussing Josephus' writings which are acknowledged as historical at least when referring to the Second Temple period. The testimony concerning Jesus occurs within that. Therefore, unless we have good reason to take it as a inserted forgery we should accept it like the rest of Josephus."

No it isn't. My point is - as has been discussed here by several people, there is that there is a lot of good reasons to believe that josephus never wrote that verse. And that you seem to be one of those theists that demand absolute proof of anything that does not suit you, but you require very little reason to believe what you believe. Therefore, to show how pointless your demand for such proof is, I challenge you to show that Brahmin does not exist. The point is that absolute proof is hard for anything, so we have to go with what is reasonable, and if you can not counter the problems with the authenticity of the testimonium flavium, then we will just have to agree to differ. I think It is very naive of you to say that because it is there we should accept it, especially since so many learned christian scholars dispute its authenticity. Like I say, it breaks up the sandwiching paragraph. that's pretty damn good evidence of an interpolation, then there are the textual problems. Why dont you accept the koran is the word of god?

"is gimlibengloin Jack/Dylan in disguise?"

Do you have a translator for this question?"

You just sound like some one else

all the best Billy

1465. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16176 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 8:16 am

gimlibengloin 578
It is true many people have had bad experiences of christians (I certainly am one - at least it started me questioning), but your comment is really doing what you say you dont like in atheists. There are also plenty of humanist charity workers too. All of which is irrelevant to the point of the arguements here. I do however think that the behaviour of some christians can be best explained in terms of there being no god.
Tell us your best joke and see if we laugh:-)

1466. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16175 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 8:09 am

Mark, you are going to have to prove that prophecies were written before the event, and deuteronomy 29 just sounds so much like a verse about Babylon.
the bible contains many failed prophecies too (eg Jer. 25:11-12: "This entire land shall become a desolate wasteland. Israel and her neighboring lands shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. Then, when seventy years of captivity are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and his people for their sins, says the Lord. I will make the country of the Babylonians an everlasting wasteland." Jeremiah was wrong about the length of the exile. The Babylonians took Jerusalem in 587/586 BC (rewriting the bible p154) and Cyrus the Great (not the mysterious Darius the Mede of Dan. 9:1) conquered Babylon in 538 BC (rtb p156). He also proclaimed that the Jews could return home in the first year of his reign (Ezr. 1:1-4). This is at most 49 years, and even if we are generous and take the start of the prophecy as 597 BC, when the Babylonians first laid siege to Jerusalem (the bible unearthed p293), that still only totals 59 years. During that time, neither Israel nor Jerusalem lay desolate (tbu pp 305-308), and Babylon was not destroyed by Cyrus. In fact, Alexander the Great (356-321 BC) may have considered using the city as his capital (The Babylonians An Introduction p67).
here is a link to some more http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
Theo
concerning the designer always existing, are you really saying that reason allows you to make that unverifiable dodge? As far as I am aware, it is not the common belief that scientists claim that matter always existed. Even if that wereo, how can that be used to justify your claim that god always existed? that is faith, not reason

1467. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16171 by BillySands on January 5, 2007 at 7:55 am

Lot of comments here, so sorry if I miss any.
I think josephus has been dealt with and I am still waiting for proof that Brahmin does not exist. Again I point you to the fact that the paragraph after the jesus one talks of another disaster. Does that mean that the comming of the christ was a disaster then? or if we take out the jesus passage, we see the previous disaster was the one referred to in the paragraph before the testimonium flavium.
Mark
The jews still did not know the language if they had to learn it. You are going to have to provide better evidence than that. whether the verse claims to be prophetic or not (not a point made by me) is irrelevant, it is still a warning. I didn't know Daniel was written in aramaic. that is interesting, and provides even more evidence that it was written well after it claims to have been.
Theo
comment 537 The fossil record is actually very good considering the difficulties involved, and many many transitional forms do exist. You need to get more informed (see some of the early discussion here with jack (btw is gimlibengloin Jack/Dylan in disguise?:))

575
"No Billy, the bible wasn't my evidence for believing in God, it was reason. (as an atheist I would not have given the bible a second glance). So what made me abandon my atheist ways?"

I WASN'T SAYING WHY YOU BELIEVE. MY POINT IS THAT MANY CHRISTIANS HOLD IT UP AS THEIR EVIDENCE (PARTICULARLY YECs) The bible even makes that claim about itself (jn 20:31). I find reason a good i reason not to believe. Feel free to provide some evidence.

"1. The Steady State Theory- States that life on earth always existed
2. Special Creation- that life originated from a Creator
3. Cosmic Panspermia- that life on earth originated elsewhere in the universe
4. Spontaneous Generation- that a self replicating cell emerged from non-living material

NB: Cosmic Panspermia does not properly address the origin of life; it just shifts the problem to another place in the universe. As a result it will be ignored in this discussion.

Scientists have indeed tested the testable and these are the results.
For theory number:
1. Falsified
2. Unknown
3. N/A
4. Falsified
It must be noted that theory #4 has been tested on numerous occasions each returning the same verdict: Falsified, Falsified, etc."

Really, that is news to the scientific community, perhaps you would care to elaborate. creationist evidence to be honest is pathetic and very easily refuted - feel free to supply some.

1468. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16022 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:09 am

Hi rydrum2112
Do you have the link to that site?

cheers

Billy

1469. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16020 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:07 am

"In any event, at best the writings of Josephus suggest that there was a man named Jesus whose followers attracted the attention of some authorities. In other words, it does very little to confirm the biblical account of Jesus' life and/or ministry."

And like many (if not all) the gospel writers josephus was not an eye witness to the life of jesus anyway

1470. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16017 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:04 am

"Already have as it is there in Josephus. It is your obligation to demonstrate it is a forgery (or even an interpolation) which you havn't done)"

I have challenged it, you have failed to defend it. Prove it is not a forgery. A forged interpolation is by far the most reasonable explanation

Can you prove to me that brahmin does not exist? It's amazing how theists change their tune concerning their own beliefs

1471. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16014 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 6:53 am

gimlibengloin
Am I to assume that you are one of those who would require to see someone like eusebius forge it with your own eyes because it doesn't suit you. People get convicted of crimes (that no one saw them commit) all the time on the basis of evidence. If you are a theist, then you seem to accept some pretty bizzare and unsubstantiated claims from your holy book as fact. You incidentally have provided no evidence of your own.
Do you accept that the passage was an insertion? Do you not think the paragraph above and below make perfect sence with out it? Surely josepus would have rewritten it so that it flowed?
The passage is never quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen, despite its enormous apologetic value. Origen certainly quotes the reference to jesus' brother around 200CE

1472. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16003 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 6:15 am

gimlibengloin,
I'm going to assume that you hve not read my comment no 437 and repost some of it again for you to read

The antiqities 18:3:2-4 2. "But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

Verse 4 makes no sense. What other sad calamity? was the christ coming a sad calamity? take out the jesus verse and it makes sense
"2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

It is obviously an insertion.
Full text here if you are interested http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

Perhaps you could explain away this problem and the lack of early reference to this text and the why a jew would call jesus the christ?
Theists need to learn to think for themselves and not accept so called authority. present your evidence if you have any

1473. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15986 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 5:13 am

Hi Down_Under,

I cant believe people claim the bible is not racist.
Theo,
lets not forget that no ammonite or Moabite may enter the congregation of god Nehemiah 13:1 (oops, Jesus had a moabite ancestor (Ruth))
No stranger, foreigner, or uncircumcised person can eat the Passover.Ex 12:43, 45, 48
God favors Israelites "above all people." Ex 19:5
If a priest's daughter marries "a stranger" she can't eat any holy things. lev 22:12
If a priest's daughter marries "a stranger" she can't eat any holy things. Deut 22:12
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." Deut 13:6-10
God commands the Israelites to "blot out the rembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (looks like he failed since the bible remembers them) A few hundred years later God orders Saul to kill of the Amalekites "both man and woman, infant and suckling." (1 Sam.15:2-3) Deut 25:19
Had enough? there are plenty more and Jesus thought of the gentiles as second class citizens
Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. Mark 7:27
Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. Matt 10:5-6.

1474. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15867 by BillySands on January 3, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Theo, concerning the wikipedia article, did it ever occur to you that some fundie may question the neutrality simply because it does not agree with them.
How can you dismiss the other gods who are saviours, been resurrected and born of virgins as insignificant. There are also coins and documents that date to about 200BCE that comemmorate the ascent of Mithras to heaven. Ifanyone was faking it, it was the christians who forged the testimony of josephus.
Concerning women in the bible
Eve also gets all the blame for the original sin (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women!
on slavery
he doesn't mind you beating them, as long as you don't kill them (Ex. 21:22-24). God likes slavery so much; he even sets different laws for their welfare to those of their Israelite masters. If an owner knocks out a slaves eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). I like Gandhi's observation (pardon the pun) that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Should the master kill the slave, the punishment is not defined (Ex. 20:21) here, but If he kills an Israelite, he too must be killed (Ex. 21:12). God also likes perfectly formed people too. Any one deformed may not approach him (Lev. 21:16-23). He must love having someone to hate, because the bible tells us that he knits people together in the womb (Ps. 139:13-15). So I guess every now and then, he uses his special magic god powers of righteous justice to decide exactly who to make deformed, just so he can hate them. The almighty loving God is also partial to accepting the occasional human sacrifice (Num. 31:40, Jud. 11:29-40) In the second example, a girl (Jephthah's daughter) was sacrificed to God because of her fathers' vows. Of course, if you question God on the subject, he denies accepting human sacrifice at all, claiming the whole idea to be abhorrent to him (Jer. 19:4-6). Nice lie your holiness!

1475. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #15688 by BillySands on January 2, 2007 at 4:31 am

Paul

"David, please tell us what, if anything, is wrong with the reasoning in the paragraph above."

Oh that's easy, Scotland reach the world cup final? :-)

joadist
Every time whe disprove a messianic prophecy, or show the world is not 6000 years old and flat, we disprove the christian god. It is amazing that all a theist can do is point to (soon to be filled) gaps in our knowledge as evidence of the certainty of his conviction that he and his cult alone are miraculously informed of the absolute truth of the universe - a truth that sees them alone as special and escaping eternal torment (invented by themselves). These people need to pitied, not scolded.

1476. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15686 by BillySands on January 2, 2007 at 4:03 am

Theo
"The scholarly world is divided over the mentioned passage, some, observing that it was written in Josephus's style deem it authentic. However, I followed your link and found that the current consensus of the matter is," It seems clear that, whatever the current fashion of scholarship, no conclusive evidence exists to allow a final closure of this question."

The only people who think the verse is authentic are those who want it to be. Any impartial person can clearly see it has bee stuck in between two paragraphs and disrupts the flow. Again, as for the style, no committed jew would refer to jesus as the christ.




"This discussion over the reliability of the bible is fruitless because the premise advanced by some is:
1. the bible contains miracles
2. miracles do not exist
3. therefore the bible is false

Thus if God does not exist to a person, the bible, whether it is reliable or not, would not really matter. If by some stretch of the imagination the bible is proven false, then it does not mean that God does not exist, it means he did not write it. Then I would hold the Deist position."

I think you miss the point here, the bible is the christians evidence of there god. Show it to be false, you show their god is false. Why would you hold a deist position? Why not jump to islam, or better still atheism? You obviously think there must be some god. Why?

Mark
Sorry, I forgot to say, this is Daniel 1:4:
"He was to teach them [jewish captives] the language and literature of the Babylonians."

It just makes so much more sense that this was written some time after Babylon.

Down_Under
The whole man god thing is fatal to christianity. Their whole religion is pagan. There is nothing new about it, and it is just a collection of recycled myths, and the life of jesus is based on OT non prophecies that are not about jesus, but are claimed to be so by the gospel writers.

1477. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15132 by BillySands on December 29, 2006 at 4:17 am

Amen Hopeful,
He clearly does not think. how absurd was that comment about jesus and his wife? He has decided that he will not be budged, whereas i am sure that many here will re-evaluate their positions in the light of new evidence. May I suggest that David answers the challenges and not circumnavigate them. May I also suggest that he takes time to get the point of comments. It just reflects very badly on you when you dont do this. Are you this bad when reading the bible too?

1478. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15116 by BillySands on December 29, 2006 at 2:49 am

Hi Mark,
I just realised that your main objection to the chapter being about Babylon (their language) is refuted by the bible "He was to teach them [jewish captives] the language and literature of the Babylonians."
The language was clearly different enough that they had to learn it

1479. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15048 by BillySands on December 28, 2006 at 1:37 pm

The thing about David is that he has a very low standard for what he considers evidence in favour of his weak position. Then when he gets put under too much pressure, he throws his toys out of the pram and says "you dont understand, and so and so is a professional mathematicion/astronomer/theologian etc". That doesn't stop him commenting on things he clearly does not understand (see his own thread for proof). His mind is closed to debate and as some are finding, he resorts to ad hominem, straw men and avoidance strategies.

It is funny, no matter how irretreviably you think you are down the atheistic path, someone like David comes along and makes you realise that it is possible to be convinced even more that christianity is totally wrong. thanks Dave.

Good luck guys and may your patience last

1480. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15024 by BillySands on December 28, 2006 at 9:32 am

Hi Mark,

Seems like there has been a lot of activity here recently. Sorry for the short response, but I don't think your arguement about the eagle cuts it. Prophecy should be clear, or it is open to so much interpretation. A clear example woyuld be Isaiah 45. There is definately no confusion there (pobably written by the persians though. If I am going to be interpretive I could make a case that it is about the Germans. Fly like an eagle, eagle stantard, move rappidly, (blitzkrieg). Exiled from homeland (anywhere thwey were living) and sent to Egypt (concentration camps) where they were sold as slaves but no one wanted to buy then (forced labour) They were also starved here and in the ghettos.
Deut 28 is probably more a set of threats to propogate the continuation of jewish monotheism and probably referrs to no future events

I'm affraid that Daniel (probably more concerned with antiochus IV) is actually full of historical inaccuracies, and this is why many think it was written about 167BCE. This is an introduction to this, and there are other problems:http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/daniel.html

1481. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14956 by BillySands on December 27, 2006 at 8:52 am

Good article. Go on any church message board and you will see these myths. Maybe we should encourage others to bring the message of the god delusion to churches via their message boards. David A Robertson has inspired a few of us to do that on his site http://www.fcosonline.org/
I have Just skimmed David Robertson's post. There is so much wrong with it. I wont waste my time on it, but will point out how arrogant it is of the religious to claim their particular brand of religion is the only true one.
-YAWWWWN!

1482. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14786 by BillySands on December 25, 2006 at 4:39 am

Fedler,
I've noticed how the religious try and justify their beliefs peudoscientifically when it suits them. I found this one on the David's site:

"God knew well about female eggs, since He created them. It even speaks about the ''seed of the woman'' in Genesis 3:15."

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1790.0

the verse isn't even about eggs, but ofspring. It is a poor attempt to find evidence that god knows of something that contempory society could not possibly know. Needless to say, I put him right - and David, I would do the same in a scientific context too.

1483. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14546 by BillySands on December 23, 2006 at 4:48 am

Martin, isn't amazing how christians try an iron out biblical difficulties by inventing evidence and convoluted "thinking"

1484. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14532 by BillySands on December 23, 2006 at 3:28 am

Perhaps David would like to tell us why he does not have aproblem with evolution. The bible prohibits it. It talks of creating man out of dust and says let animals reproduce more of their own kind (see gen 1 and 2). I have already come across posts on his own site that that say as much.
As for his gripe about taking the bible literally, jesus and Paul take it literally.
Matt 24:38-39 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that [Noah] entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Jesus believed that sex and Adam and Eve were created "from the beginning." But the universe is about 13.6 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion, sex a billion years or so, and humans (depending on how you define "human") for a couple million years.

2Peter 3:5-6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

john also says that his gospel was written so that we may believe that jesus was the messiah (John 20:31).
Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with a witness account that is not meant to be taken literally?

1485. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14530 by BillySands on December 23, 2006 at 3:06 am

Hi mummymonkey,
Thanks for mentioning Poecillia formosa. I knew there was a naturally occuring one, but could never remember its name.

martin,
If you want a laugh, check the genealogy of Jesus in luke 3. It is VERY different

1486. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14456 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 2:18 pm

Interesting point Martin. Presumably it could give XY if a haploid X cell fused with a haploid Y cell. That may explain why she had a beard in the life of Brian:-), but as Andrew points out, the virgin birth was made up anyway

1487. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14425 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 11:44 am

The is an all female "species" of fish. Actually, it is a hybrid of the black molly Poecillia latipinna and the mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). They rely on males from a related species to kick start the developmental process. The male has no genetic input in the offspring. The process is called gynogenesis.
Isn't the evolved world cool

1488. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14404 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 9:48 am

NLHBs,
Perhaps we should do something to improve Satan's -or to give him his ancient Egyptian name-Set-An's public immage and celebrate his un birthday on the 25th. Afterall, he never gets any party invites

1489. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14360 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 6:16 am

Martin,

I'm glad my countries university dont use the bible as a text book, but Liberty University does.
As an interesting aside, one of my friends who was studying divinity at Glasgow said they have a high drop out rate, because people start to reject the teaching ofthe bible. There is some hope yet- oh an he dropped out too.

1490. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #14357 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 6:11 am

I believe the anti Horace was called ..... wait for it...
Set-An

1491. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14316 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 2:34 am

"What an awesome posting! I LOVE what I can learn from fellow Atheists!"

NLHB – could you let me know what you learnt from Torbjorn's post?"

That David doesnt understand what he is argueing about?

1492. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #14248 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 4:23 pm

Hi D_U, It seems that the story of jesus was common in mythology. Has everyone seen the Mithras video here? http://richarddawkins.net/article,441,Merry-Mithras,QI-BBC2
Mithras is essentially is Jesus (before jesus)

1493. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14240 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 3:47 pm

It seems that David does not like us to have the freedom of speech that we let him enjoy. At the time of writing, this post has been deleted twice from his site.
"It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist christians 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 an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is atheistic' (a bit like arguing christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'christianity is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance.
I have just written to Richard Dawkins and congratulated him on producing such a thoughtful and balanced book. I also warned him that the christian fundamentalists who inhabit this particular area of cyberspace were being indoctrinated against atheists."

The funny thing is that it is a response to a misrepresentation of atheists that he made, AND it is essentially his words I am using with atheist replaced with christian. His original comment is here
http://richarddawkins.net/articleTrollComments,442,The-Trouble-with-Atheism,Rod-Liddle-Channel-4,page1 and says
"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.

This programme did however prove me wrong about one thing. Maybe Channel 4 is a bit more balanced than I gave them credit for.

Have fun...."

Martin, you may want to send your responses to his site too. I dont think he wants his readers to see them. Or at least that is my interpretation of what he meant when he said he will reply to you on this site

Keep it up Dodgy Dave

1494. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14235 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 3:18 pm

It appears that David keeps removing my post from his website. That is just typical of fundies! They expect privilages that they are not prepared to give. We dont censor him (and neither we should)
3rd time lucky? Maybe I should point this out to a news paper if it continues?

1495. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14199 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Damm, that shoild have been christian fundamentalists!
Can is still get a prize?

1496. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14198 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 1:05 pm

I've just returned the trolls, post to his site with modifications. Let's see if the get angered by it http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1797.0

"It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist christians 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 an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is atheistic' (a bit like arguing christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'christianity is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance.
I have just written to Richard Dawkins and congratulated him on producing such a thoughtful and balanced book. I also warned him that the atheist fundamentalists who inhabit this particular area of cyberspace were being indoctrinated against atheists
"

Do I win a prize?

1497. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14135 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 8:47 am

Hi Fedler,
This is obviously a very emotional subject, and I hope you take my comment in a well meaning way, and realise that I am just sharing and not telling you what to do.
I too needed answers for something. I prayed and prayed with no answer. That frustrated and upset me even more. It made the whole situation even worse, because I felt god was abandoning me, and no good came from that situation. I found that trusting in god was not helping me move on, it was only keeping me in a bad place. I now realise that I had no evidence that god exists, and that there is no evidence thathe exists. I now realise that I was deluded. The reason that no answers came is not because god is there happy to not intervene in my torment, but because he is not there. I feel much better now that I know the truth. I actually feel comfort realising that there is no god
Hope that has been of some use to you in your quest
All the best
Billy

1498. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14128 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 8:31 am

Oh and there is no course on destroying christianity. It is just lots of people coming to the same glaringly obvious conclisions independantly

1499. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14127 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 8:29 am

it seems David is still calling us Fundamentalists. I am prepared to chage my view in the light of evidence. He is not. That makes him a fundie, not the majority of us. He doesn't understand the term ad hominem properly
http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1797.0
Interesting ponits david, When I have time, I will come on your site. I noticed you left out the insults you threw at others - naughty hypocrite!

And yes David, you are far from perfect. By the way, want to buy a copy of that T shirt?

1500. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14100 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 5:45 am

I found this site on whether god is outside of space and time http://www.ukapologetics.net/godoutoftime.htm
And guess what, the theologians can't agree. So, when David tries to dodge the question of who created god with this nonsense, he is actually using a far from biblically supported point of view. The fact that the evidence comes for the bible is of course not without it's own fatal flaws. The verses used are incredibly weak. The use of the term everlasting for example does not put you out with time. Infact, the bible uses everlasting for the earth and I think mountains too. I will have to check. So, davids arguement that he has indicated that he does not understand is taken from the bible (using selective verses and ignoring others and contradicts some professional theologians). He hasn't even shown that god wrote the bible, let alone seen or spoken with god, or even proved that god even exists, so coupled with the arguement from incredulity, this is evidence that an unproven being created the universe. Is that a fair representation David?
Considering the consequences of choosing the wrong god David, I would think that you would at least attempt to understand the arguement.
So, like we keep saying you have a highly irrational faith, NOT evidence