201. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #60464 by LeeC on August 2, 2007 at 2:30 am

I think Nails you are creating a god with your method, not falsifying one.
But don't let this stop you… seems like a good plan.

I notice that Ash has not come back… always the case with me, they start talking to me, they listen, and then they go away. Conversations just do not last long.

Oh well, I think my argument was a good one – may never know now.

See ya

Lee

202. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #59898 by LeeC on July 31, 2007 at 3:47 am

Hi Philip,

I did think about Moses returning from the mountaintop and all that, but I could not see the comparison between the bible where the people started to follow their false golden calf to that and the one true Quetzalcoatl.

Completely different you see.

Lee

203. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59655 by LeeC on July 30, 2007 at 3:52 am

Hi Q,

Well I have all of Judas Priest's albums, so I could be Judas if you like?

Sing.. "Breaking the law, Breaking the law..."

I'll go now...

Lee

204. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #59654 by LeeC on July 30, 2007 at 3:43 am

All,

You do realise when Mark gets back someone is going to have to explain the last 50 odd posts.

It will be like when the teacher comes back into the classroom and you have to explain what happened to their pack-lunch...

(It's happening all over again!!!)

Lee

205. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #59652 by LeeC on July 30, 2007 at 3:39 am

Hi Ash,

Should you come back to the debate (which I hope you do, but most theists do not debate with me for long for some reason) I would like to open the debate up a little if I may (before it even started?).
You started the debate with me by asking what I meant by "evidence" which I have tried to answer already, and so this gives you information about my atheist worldview that allows you to debate further with me.

Now one of the criticisms aimed at the "atheist books" by theists is that a particular book (such as TGD) maybe arguing against "a" god, but not "their" god. Could you therefore please define your god in order to open the debate and so I cannot be accused of making such a "mistake"?

On a different note, you may be glad to know I did not ignore your reference to Simon Greenleaf, but I have not been able to find much detail with regard to this "court case" argument you mentioned. If you could give me a good link that has a brief summary I will read further for my education.

Although this argument would be stronger if you gave a modern day atheist lawyer who came to the similar conclusions as Simon Greenleaf did. (You state that he "was an atheist" before his "research" but in the period that he lived and died, I doubt this a little – not important though). Of course, it would only be "stronger" it would still weak argument generally - my original argument against this was that a man turning to religion (especially in an age there was no great alternative) is not evidence that the writings in the bible is true. As I said, a lawyer living before Darwin would not have much in the way of a scientific alternative to his faith (Simon dies in 6 years before the Origin Of Species was published, with my sources, in 1853?). This would not be any more evidence for miracles in the bible than if a modern day lawyer today read the accounts of "alien landings" and came out and said "Yes, I have seen the evidence and aliens have been visiting people in North America". This would just be somebody's opinion, not evidence.

I also did a little reading on Popper (on Wikipedia I confess) but when philosophers' worry about if the sun will rise tomorrow because they only have evidence that it did yesterday (and the day before) it shows to me they have too much time on their hands (and a lack of scientific knowledge).

I do think Popper's stance on the falsification of a theory is a good one, since
"logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false"

Some people may state that Popper's philosophy has certain problems - I think it is this area of his logic that you were referring to when you wrote:-

I think you should look more closely at Karl Popper who developed the notion of "Disprovability" as he also noted that it was flawed himself

However, I see Popper's philosophy here more as a description on the boundaries of science and where it can be applied to describe the universe. This is why once something is outside the theatre of science (as would be described by Popper) I use "Occam's Razor" to make my selection on which is "best".

I personally feel that when a "scientific" theory cannot be falsified, but has many positive outcomes from experiments proving the theory true, then even though it cannot be considered as a "true" scientific theory using Popper's definition, the more positive pointers from experiment will strengthen the likelihood of such a theory actually being true. (Does that make sense?)
(There is another criteria for a good scientific theory, and that is the theory provides measurable predictions (thus making it falsifiable) - it is not as easy as just describing what we know, you have to be able to describe what we do not yet know – that's good science)

So back to the god question, I do not know how to falsify god, this theory is therefore not scientific - however it should be possible to have measurable evidence for a god (or at least such evidence would be required to prove god's existence). If all the evidence points to a god and this god is a simpler solution than any other and so does not create more questions than answers, then I will accept the god solution.

Easy really – I am so close to being a theist… apart for the lack of evidence. (The devil is always in the detail…)

Lee

206. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #59041 by LeeC on July 27, 2007 at 3:21 am

Hey Billy,

That's how I dance? I must truly be on the right path.

All praise Quetzalcoatl...

207. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59034 by LeeC on July 27, 2007 at 3:05 am

The man said it was disturbing so I wanted to turn off… then he mentioned Satan before I got hit the stop button

Am I going to hell?

Probably... I will listen some more.

Heard enough... what rubbish. Oh well, he also said he posted to all the major news networks, so I guess I will be watching on TV soon?

Doubt it...

208. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58767 by LeeC on July 26, 2007 at 4:10 am

Billy Wrote:

Like lee says, skulls with names inside would be hard to refute.

WOW, I said something useful?

I have better sit down… oh, I am – I have better stand up so I can sit down again.

Cheers

Lee

209. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58764 by LeeC on July 26, 2007 at 4:08 am

Oh powerful Q,

What praise be your book about that the foolish publishers did not recognise as written by the one true deity?

Lee

210. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58759 by LeeC on July 26, 2007 at 3:56 am

Nails wrote: 69. Comment #58517

Almost like a whale. The only book of his I have read so its not much of a recommendation really but I enjoyed it

Thanks... I will keep an eye out for it so long as it is simple and does not use too many long words. I have no biology qualifications as I have mentioned before. So I need to start at the bottom of the ladder.

to be fair, there is a lot of biology-based books i want to read first; I've spent the last 15 or so years learning and working with biology - maybe it is time for a change.

I use to be the same; until I graduated the only (non-fiction) books I would read were Physics books - I had other interests, just never enough time to read all the books I wanted too (I was not much of reader then either). I made a decision once I graduated not to pick up another physics book until I have read over some other subjects - unfortunately I got carried away and the years passed very quickly because there were just so many books of interest, it is only recently I have picked up a Physics book again and I have forgotten so much, my maths has gone out the window. Shame, but hey solving Schrödinger's equations was never a great way to pick up "chicks". (Not that I ever would try now dear if you are reading this. The wife could check my threads at anytime, so I had better be careful.)

Goldy wrote: 72. Comment #58670

Good to see what's in my head put forward in a clear fashion.

Thanks for thinking that my comments are clear... I am more worried though about your ability to make me write what is in your head - does this make me your prophet?

maybe CB was replaced by mobile phones more than email...

Probably right, but I don't worry about the details - your analogy was still true enough for me. Things move on, improving on what went before.
I remember as a kid watching Star Trek and thinking... "WOW - that's amazing, they can just talk to people on their spaceship with those little notebook things" then later in Sci-Fi shows they would talk and you would see the other person on the "main display" or big screen. Now I have my son "talking" to his grandparents using Skype and a webcam, he will laugh at Star Trek when he is older. How things have move on?

I'm still not 100% sure that the fact some leaders were "atheist' or "religious" makes any difference to the grand scheme of things.

What's that phrase again? "To make an evil man to do evil things takes nothing at all, to make a good man do evils things it takes religion" Something like that.

There is no point in taking a body count and saying "This is how many millions were killed by religious people and this is how many millions were killed by non-religious people"

The very fact that some acts of evil REQUIRE religion is the problem I have.

Quick example? The hatred of homosexuals.
Some quotes with pictures?

On what rational grounds does an atheist have to hate a homosexual? None.
A theist however has their holy book, and it is written… Thou shall kill the homosexual.

Of course, many theists have evolved passed believing such evil nonsense. Many have not. The pages are still in the bible however.
This was just a quick, from the top of my head, example.

And I'm still wondering if Buddhism can be used to explain that atheism is a bonafide religion, as such :-) I'm not dogmatic, I can be swayed

Don't know enough about Buddhism to help here.

However, I feel when a theist tries to label atheism as a religion; they are trying to make a claim that we have "faith" with our science and therefore are just like "another religion" or maybe trying to align religion to science to try and say that the religion is just as rational and logical as science. (Christian Science anyone?)

Who knows… no theist has explained their logic to me on this one.
I personally think they are just "name calling" as a child would do in the playground – it is meaningless.

Religion – Requires no empirical evidence and no amount of evidence will stop the believer in believing – this is faith. Provide any evidence to disprove god, then the goalposts will be moved, and then it will be stated that is how god works… funny that?

"Atheism" – Requires empirical evidence – evidence of a god will turn any atheist to that god.

I still do not like the word "Atheist" here but it is the best we have - at least everyone knows what we mean (I think).

Cheers

Lee

211. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58758 by LeeC on July 26, 2007 at 3:43 am

Hi Q,

On another note- I now have five people who have pledged their allegiance to me. LeeC, JC, interested in becoming part of the club? Come on, all the cool kids are doing it.....

Oh... this is just "follow the masses argument"? You know I am more critical on the gods than this.

As your god, I can offer you a competitive rewards and blessings package, for a small investment of worship. You won't find a better deal

Erm... reward for only small investment... it does sound like a good deal. Once in a lifetime offer you could say?

Well, I know you exist and you respond to my communications so you are "one-up" on any other god I know of.

Written any good books?

Also, you are also the god of the future... no mucking about with prayers, I just log on and there you are.

Perhaps you should tell me what sort of divine messages you are looking for, and I will see whether I am prepared to offer them. I am an easy-going, fairly flexible Deity.

You were ahead of me... WOW - this shows your true power as a god, I am interested to learn more.

Now, not that I want to test you or anything, but as a god - what have you ever done for "us"?

But do not take me for granted- Billy did once, and almost lost his sacred Lab Coat. I am beneficent, but no pushover.

OK OK... no more questions.

I watch on the TV news what you did to midlands in England with your floods. All the non-believers had to deal with your wrath... your power is truly great.
(You even stopped the mother-in-law from going on her holidays with your floods, so not all bad then?)

I'm converted (and so is my wife - she loves your dashing good looks, not the greatest reason to convert, but she will learn)...

All praise Quetzalcoatl, the one true god.

May your feathers but fluffy and light

Lee

PS
My son has not yet decided to convert, but please forgive him oh wonderful one, he is young and is tainted by a false god known as "Thomas the tank engine" or Choo Choo to his army of followers.

212. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58511 by LeeC on July 25, 2007 at 4:32 am

Hi Q,

Wasn't the Judas gospel written by Jeffrey Archer?

The Gospel According to Judas

Not sure if I trust the guy myself.

See ya

Lee

213. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58508 by LeeC on July 25, 2007 at 4:28 am

Thanks Billy,

So that is what JC looks like?

This thread has aged him a bit.

Lee

214. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58502 by LeeC on July 25, 2007 at 4:01 am

All,

I've just started doing some back reading on this thread. Looks like I have made a few mistakes in my assumptions on some of the topics/responses on this and other threads... oh well - hope you can forgive. If you have not noticed, then I got away with it. If you have noticed, I am sorry.

Bonzai Wrote: 36. Comment #57786

I am an atheist and I hate clandishness. Atheist "churches" are just as bad as churches of any organized religion.

I'm with you on this one Bonzai.

Although this does present us a with problem.

What do you call a group of Atheists? Or should we all just be individuals? The let us all say it together ("Life of Brian" Style) "Yes, We are ALL individual"

To be honest, I am not that happy with the label "Atheist" either - but we are stuck with it because religion got in first with the naming standards.

I think this is one of the issues the "Bright" movement are trying to solve - although I'm not happy with the label "Bright" either... especially when I see myself as "Dim" on many subjects.

Oh well...

Nails wrote: 42. Comment #57918

Reading? may I recommend Dawkins, Sam Harris, Steve Jones and Christopher Hitchens to name but four that I have read

Not read any Steve Jones myself - not much of a biologist (adding to my increasing list of things I am not) - I read the Blind Watchmaker years ago, and this is as close as I came to biology. (I do not see the TGD as a biology book) Although a scary thing is I was expected to teach the subject at secondary school without any qualifications in the subject? You will be glad to know I decided not take up teaching.

My reading list has broadened a lot these last few months - can you recommend a good Steve Jones book?

Ash Wrote: 43. Comment #58078

I'm not sure I would soberly recommend Christopher Hitchens to anybody (though I have read him)

I would... I finished reading his book "God is not great" a couple of weeks ago... loved it. (The best bit is the funny looks you get on the train) I just wish he gave more references for the statements he makes because without them, I do not know if I can trust some of his observations.

Just finished reading Sam Harris' book last night - "End of Faith" - it started well, but I found it rather "evil" since it had a lot of hatred in it. I love Sam's talks and his logical arguments are great, I can only assume the post 9/11 period he was writing in tainted his words - I will try and give his next book a go soon but it is rather expensive over here at the moment, certainly for a book Sam himself says you can read in a couple of hours!!

This ends my book review for the evening...

newatheist wrote: 56. Comment #58228

Harry Potter is a wizard. Says so in a book

I tried this line of argument once... the theist in question did not seem to understand my point.

Probably one of the problems is that no one is killing in the name of Harry Potter yet.

Ash Wrote: 53. Comment #58220

History also teaches us that the "religion" of atheism is an anomily; both in the world today and more so in the past. I expect it will pass, like flares & CB radio, only taking a little longer to do so

Funny really, I was hoping that it is "religion" that is just an anomaly and we will all grow out of it. (I do not see "God" and "Religion" as the same thing with my statement here.)

As Goldy suggested with the CB radio, when it was replaced by another "improved" invention - this is my hope for religion, I just wish I knew what could replace it. Maybe it is "Better the devil you know" in the end and so the best hope is to tame religion. I purchased Dan Dennett's book the other week, I look forward to reading it soon since I believe this is the main topic of the book.

Ash Wrote 55. Comment #58226

An entertaining read, if I cannot subscribe to the sentiment.

Simple question then - what would it take for you to subscribe?

Can a logical argument change your view? (Not that I am very good at logic)

I have already stated evidence would change my worldview, I just wonder what would change yours, if anything?

This is just a curiosity question, I am not out to "convert" you to my "church" (the "atheist church" as you have put it) and I assume you are not trying to convert anyone here either.

I'm here just for the debate and my own learning. I assume (again) just like you.

pewkatchoo Wrote: 59. Comment #58260

Ash Roskell is an idiot. He got caught out with a slip in getting Professor Dawkins first name wrong and then tried to cover up his embarrassment by inventing a tenuous link to some martyred geek in the bible. What a plonker.

We will have to let Ash defend himself on this one. Was it a mistake, or a bad joke gone wrong - who knows? Who really cares in the end?

However Dawkins has made several jokes in lectures about being mistaken for Stephen "the man in the wheelchair" Hawking.

It would be an easy mistake to make after drinking a couple of glasses of wine. Hell, I make enough when I am sober - it scares me the posts I have written after a glass of wine on this site.

Goldy wrote: 61. Comment #58339

LeeC pretty much asked a lot of questions I have been wanting to ask.

Sorry, I did not mean to ask so many questions - just got carried away. There are still plenty to go around though I am sure.

You may have noticed with my long reply, that the question "What do you mean by evidence?" has been aimed at me before.

My reply here is my first real attempt to answer this question in full (Well, I edited it a little - I do not want to predict too many of Ash's responses before they are posted – I could be plain wrong but we will see where we go).

I have a simple mind; my worldview is based on observations and experimentation (erm - science I think they call it?). This is why I have not bothered too much with philosophy, religion or god. I have got to where I am today without needing too much philosophy, and certainly no god or religion at any point in my life. I have looked at both the latter and found them wanting.

Science and "the razor" has got me this far as I have said.

This does not of course mean I am right, hence why I am here debating. I am more than happy to change my worldview, but for me to do this, it will be evidence based. Unless someone can explain why this is the wrong approach?

I do not claim to know everything and so I want to learn more.
I've been knocking around this website for a while now, and I have learnt a lot, but I still a long way to go.


Nails wrote: 62. Comment #58377

no religion = no suicide bombers

Probably true, it certainly would reduce their number to nearly zero without religion, which is your point.

This is why I have a dislike of religion; it can be used as a form of brainwashing, it certainly does not (in the extreme) encourage free thought. I have nothing against someone believing in god, but religion is another thing.

I often find that to attempting to move to a new field brings up gaps in your knowledge or questions that require further investigation, and that would be a drain on my time and resourses. After all, what is the point in only looking at one perspective? Much better to examine something from all possible angles.

I understand where you are coming from, I try and read around the subject and try to "master" a topic (as far as my abilities or interests allow) before moving to the next topic but biology is not everything. (Unless you are at Uni, and the exams are everything)

It seems from this statement you do not like to move onto new subjects because you don't know much about the subject. If you never learn something new, this will always be the case.

Maybe I have just misunderstood you here - sorry

Bonzai wrote: 64. Comment #58445

A very intelligent muslim I debate with on another site claims there is a verse from the Quran which says that Islam makes good people better and bad people worse. He doesn't say the two opposite effects even out or that the good effect will outweigh the bad. It is kind of an interesting view and it seems more honest and even handed than what you would expect from a devoute believer.

I just got my copy of the Quran at the weekend, so could you ask your friend for the chapter and verse number?

"Islam makes good people better and bad people worse."

Can I assume that this means Islam makes bad Muslims worse? Or has it been misquoted, and it means without Islam we are made worse?

It does sound interesting at face value... doesn't answer all the evil that is in the Quran though (I did say I just finished reading Sam Harris, and he gives 4 or 5 pages of evil quotes from the Quran - this is why I bought myself a copy to check for myself.)

It is also no proof for the existence of god, but I know you are not quoting this passage for this purpose.

See ya

Lee

215. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58335 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Just downloading... I look forward to my train ride now.

Lee

216. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58333 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Hi Pewkatchoo,

I think Friar William would be very happy.

In his day he could not take his idea to its natural conclusion. (The church could scare you into thinking this would be a bad idea - BBQ atheist would be the church response)

Lee

217. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58243 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 5:55 am

Ash,

Meanwhile, two points; 1) you will find the legal argument briefly addressed in my last posting. 2) I think you should look more closely at Karl Popper who developed the notion of "Disprovability" as he also noted that it was flawed himself.

Quickly, it is late here.

Your first point does not hold much water with me as it stands. I will freely admit that for some reason, grown men can turn to religion; there may be many reasons for this. This is not what we are debating though.

Your example does not make the "statements" in the bible true. I have reasoned against this, but I will wait for you to address my points directly before I continue further here.

As for your second point – well, I said I do not do philosophy, it is not really me.

You can talk until you are blue in the face about what colour to paint the wheel or indeed what to call the wheel - the important thing is that it is round and it works - simple. This is how I see science. It works!!!

Philosophy is just thinking about thinking. It is interesting, but it doesn't get me out of bed in the morning that's all. (Hope I do not offend anyone). I am learning more about Karl Popper, and the more I learn, the more I like.

Occam's razor at the moment does the job for me for when science reaches it current limits, unless you can better it?

Douglas Adams also works for me… I found the quote I was thinking of earlier.

"Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn't necessarily do it in chronological order, though."

So, I look forward to your rely.

Enjoy Lon-don.

Lee

218. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58236 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 4:47 am

Excellent... more Dennett, that's what we want.

Lee

219. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58233 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 4:42 am

Hi Q,

I wish I had access to this thread at work... I would not get much work done, but think of the number of posts I could do!!!

Have to go, this time-zone rubbish is not good for small talk.

See ya

Lee

PS

Like the lasers...

220. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58225 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 4:14 am

Hi Billy,

On the subject of martial arts, it made me think of the old days back in England, cos mine is the ancient Lancastrian art of ecky thump.

Obviously not as hard as the mutant crabs you seem to working on.


For old times, Here's a link... it's a long one.

Part I

Part II

221. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58222 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 4:03 am

Hi Ash,

A theist's job is never done eh?

Just like my corrections on my last post, sorry if you have already made the effort to read it.

Oh well... I hope you get the point.

Lee

222. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58219 by LeeC on July 24, 2007 at 3:52 am

Hi Ash,

I'm honestly not hedging but, in order to answer your question, I need to know what you would regard as evidence.

Hedging? I hope not, sounds a bit rude!!!

Evidence?

Oh, just the old fashioned usual stuff, something that could be repeated in the science lab under agreed test conditions for any miracle claim say. (James Randi has a million dollars for anyone who can do this BTW – no one has collected? God must not be performing miracles today through people or they just don't need the money?)

More general, something "new" that falsifies an established scientific theory - evolution of life, "evolution" of the stars, galaxies and universe, Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity to give you a few theories to throw stones at – I say "new" in the sense that science knows the limits of these theories, so your new observation has to break a "law" that has been held to be true for sometime, oh, and of course cannot be answered by science.
(A god surely could do this right?)

So basically, any observation that the simplest solution would be to invoke a god to solve the problem.
(I state this because I know science has many "gaps" in its knowledge on what it can precisely answer. However, the best solution in my view has to solve the problem without causing more questions and problems.
Introduce a god into any equation, then you "may" solve the initial problem but you now have to explain where this complex god came from. The number of "unsolved" problems has increased in complexity with the introduction of a god.

This "view" is a philosophy I use and add it to my science theories; it is Occam's razor – works for me.)

Do you need some examples of observations that would prove the existence of a god to me (and many others)?
The opinions are almost limitless for any would-be god…
How about changing the spin of the Earth so the sun rises in the west and not the east - too tricky for the maker of the universe?
How about speeding up the spin of the Earth so that the length of a day (over night) changes from 24 hours, to 23 hours 30 mins… would not have to wait as long for Christmas?
How about moving the moon out of its orbit, then putting it back?
How about just changing the spin of the moon so it is no longer tidally locked to the orbit of the Earth. That would be nice; we would be able to see the "whole" of the moon rather than the same old side all the time.

Science has no mechanism how any of these observations could "just happen" and not surprisingly they have never been seen – so this would be evidence of a "god" to me if it could be done any time in the near future. Not proof he made the universe, but one step at a time eh?

If you ask me has anyone seen Jesus do a miracle, I would have to answer, "yes, look at the witness statements of the apostles, most of who'm did not change their statements in the face of torture & execution."

First problem with your statement, you seem to have already assumed that Jesus has performed a "miracle" and then feel "forced" ("I would have to" are your words) to use the bible account as evidence for your initial assumption.

This is not evidence at any rate since it's circular. The only evidence you have of any Jesus' "miracles" ("events") being performed is the bible account of them, and the source of evidence for these "events" sorry "miracles" is again the bible account.

We have only the evidence from the source in which you are trying to prove.

This is NOT evidence.

So what would be evidence I hear you cry if you will not accept the written word?
(I have already given some of the physical laws god could break just for fun, so lets move on)

Well, actually, I could accept the written word as evidence. So if you did reply in this manner, you would be wrong about me. (I am glad I stepped in to stop any embarrassment.)

However, has any written source outside the bible described these miracles in detail?

I hear the Romans and Greeks were pretty good at writing things down, but they do not seem to mention much about the miracles?
Plenty of Jews "witnessed" the same events presumably, but most Jews did not become Christians from witnessing such "events" and so maybe they doubted what they presumably saw.

This seems strange to me?

So where is the written evidence of these miracles by sources "outside" the bible?

(Please do not show me "hearsay" of some writing that states "I hear of some Jew who performs miracles" – this is no more evidence than the bible itself. Besides, at the time, I understand there were rather a lot of Jews performing miracles, but you believe in only one messiah?)

If these events really did happen then we should have other eye witnesses' accounts – why is this not the case? Where is this evidence?
(I am of course opening myself up and showing my "ignorance" here, since I have not read every book on the subject of the "Jesus miracle" claims but I am always happy to learn something new.)

Notice, I have not stated I disagree with what is written in the bible on these matters, just that I do not accept them as evidence for the reasons stated.
(I will leave this to others on the thread for now. One line of argument at a time)

From a "neutral" like myself, I feel the writers of the bible have a bias, they are selling you something, but you are not questioning the seller:
If a man in the street was trying to sell you an expensive $2000 Rolex watch for just $50, and he says something like "I am selling the watch because it was given to me as a leaving gift from work but I need the money now, trust me, it is not stolen or anything, would I lie to you?"

Well, the man maybe telling the truth, but I think you would like further evidence before you complete any transaction?

In your everyday life you will question many things and deem many as unreasonable, but many theists cannot question their faith with the same level of questioning.

Another way of looking at your argument is if you ask me have Aliens from another planet visited Earth in the last 60 years.

I could answer:
"Yes, we have many eye witness accounts, these people truly believe what they saw, and would be prepared to testify in a court of law on a holy bible that they are telling the truth." (Torture in the modern day just isn't the done thing so I cannot match your example 100%, but they would go to prison if they lied so there is risk in lying.)

So, does this make their beliefs in Alien landings true? Does this make their beliefs likely?

Not to me. With only this evidence I feel I should doubt them – would you agree?

Can I prove that their beliefs are wrong, and that no alien has visited planet Earth?

No – I cannot, but I do not have too. All the observational evidence is against them, so they need to prove their statements true.

So to maintain such beliefs or at least to convince me they are true - they have a lot of explaining to do.

I assume you would agree also? (Or do I need to expand on the type of evidence they would require or the problems they need to address?)

If you can understand my argument against the alien invasion community, maybe you can understand more why I have difficulty with the "God made this" community.
(A lot of theists are able to see the difficulties in other people's arguments with beliefs that are not their own. As it has been written by others, a theist can happily be an atheist against Thor, Apollo, Woden and every other god, but their own.)

So, just because someone "truly believes" that what they saw was true, does not actually prove to anyone what they think happened is in fact true - it would be possible to give you many examples of people in the modern day who have had their "beliefs fooled", just watch some of the many magic shows out there fooling the masses. Derren Brown is a good modern example (The messiah show can be found somewhere on this site
Its here)

So even if I accept the account of the bible to be "honest" with regards to these "witnesses" and their experiences, I know how easily people can be fooled so this would not be evidence in itself.

More would be required for the reasons I have just given.

You must know the phrase by now I am sure, "Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary evidence."

I have given you some areas where I would look for evidence for a god (the breaking of scientific laws) and have not seen any evidence for god yet.

An all powerful god could provide as much (or as little) evidence as he wants. The problem a theist has is that god has provided nothing in the natural world that requires a god as the "simplest" solution. (I'm a big fan of Occam's razor remember).

So, evidence is the first requirement. Without evidence, I see no requirement for a god.

You said you read Christopher Hitchens, well to quote the man
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

On the other hand you may want a discussion about physics or metaphysics, history or politics? If you would expand on you question I would be happy to do my best to give a clear answer.

Happy to discuss physics, I am a little rusty on the matter, so would love to brush-up on it again. Astrophysics was more my thing.

Metaphysics? Philosophy is not really me. Occam's razor is as close as I have needed to go to Philosophy. "Things happen, because they happen" is another one.

History - What's your poison? Mine is Medieval England, with particular focus on the War of the Roses… The wife is talking to a publisher at the moment to get a book published on the subject of the 2nd Battle of St Albans – Although I'm not sure this is the place for such a discussion (or the period you had in mind?)

Politics? John Howard is an idiot…. Tony Blair – Bye Bye. Bush?? Lets not go there, we could be back onto religion and politics.

Shall we stick with the first discussion; it is big enough topic as it is.
Then we will move on to these others if you still want to debate with me.

Can I move onto your reply to Nails? You made some interesting points?
(Nails, has responded now to some, but I want to clear a couple of things up for my debate)

Steve Jones is a man with whom I often agree with regard to his evolution studies & have used his evidence amongst my own parishoners,

I will be open about what I have read, and what I have not. Steve Jones is not someone on my current reading list.

You say you agree with his evolution studies, so does this mean you are more than happy with the standard evolution theory and that man evolved to his current state? Excellent – we do not need to waste time on that debate then.

"parishioners"? – What's your day job again?

are you honestly telling me you have read the whole of "Origin of Species"?

No, but neither have I read Newton's "Principia Mathematica", this does not mean my Physics is fundamentally flawed.
(Damn – I was beaten on making this point, well done Bonzai – the problem being in the wrong time-zone and no internet access at work)

no doubt, the head of your atheist church will have (that is not sarcasm by the way)

"atheist church" – Nice one centurion, nice one - can I add this to my collection of sound-bites?

I was called a "born-again-atheist" on another thread… I like it. Meaningless, but I like it.
(I did reply to this, Bonzai, but we hardly knew each other then, so sorry if I misunderstood what you meant by it - I also made the silly assumption that you were a theist. I should have done more back reading - oh well, just proves your point I guess. I can be unwise like the best (and worse) of them. Anyway here it is for the record.)


See ya

Lee

PS

P.S. to LeeC
Please forgive my rather selfindulgent referrence to Stephen. I shall endeavour to be clearer in the event of any further dialogue.

No worries – this is the problem with intellectual jokes/references – you need to understand them.

I learnt something though – Stephen was the first Christian martyr – if it comes up in a pub quiz I know who to thank.

223. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58105 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Hi bouwe,

The story so far?

Do forget we did a little debate about SG ("spontaneous Generation?"– It was so long ago) Vs God thingy - however that was with Theo, and although he has promised to return, has not kept the promise.

I personally keep trying to ask the Age of the Universe, did get a mini-debate out of it but the debate moved back to prophecy. I will keep pushing this though.

The Noah flood debate was also being pushed by me, this is because Mark believes 100% in the bible, and I cannot see how the flood described could actually happen, and best of all – the flood is testable. I agree it is "just too ridiculous" but it is just one of the many things in the bible that I think fit this description.

However, we are still short of a theist at the moment, so we are just passing time.

Lee

224. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58035 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 4:00 am

Why not put a great big red target on the pigeons arse... much more fun. BANG... BANG

We had a couple of wedgetailed eagles flying over our estate recently... not seen them for a while, maybe the pigeons ganged up on them. The bar-stools.

Lee

225. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58030 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 3:45 am

Paint normal ones white there and they are more likely to evade and survive attacks

Maybe their survival chances would be better if some biology student didn't set a great bloody big falcon to attack them in the first place testing a theory that a bit of paint on the their arse could actually helped them – just a thought.

Lee

226. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58021 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 3:09 am

Q,

A butterfly?

Lee

227. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58016 by LeeC on July 23, 2007 at 2:44 am

Mark,

No worries...

Billy,

I think it was something to do with god and the bible?

Just trying to be helpful.

Lee

228. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57896 by LeeC on July 22, 2007 at 3:51 am

It's a mistake to judge historic people by the rules we apply today.

I totally agree with that statement.

In modern terms, Henry V is a right bar-stool, but a hero in the 1400's.

Lee

229. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #57895 by LeeC on July 22, 2007 at 3:49 am

Hi Ash,

Sorry the Stephen reference was so far over my head it was into the carpark.

Also, what is this truth you refer to in the bible? Any evidence for this god chap? I keep asking every theist, but they have never given me any.

See you around.

Lee

230. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57880 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Responding to 107. Comment #57800 by Bonzai

I will skip to the last comment you made first, then work back

Of course, you are targeting the "born again atheists" - not sure who they are myself, care to give some names and examples why you think they are "irrational" and "unwise"?

Instead of scrolling back to name names, let's just say you. How's that?

OK… first, please explain how I am a "born again atheist"? I have never believed in God and I certainly not had any ritual confirming my atheistism or had any "experience" that turned me to atheistism. These I think are what normally happens when you are a "born again Christian" are they not? Does sound like me at all with my atheistism.

Also, I asked you also to give examples of any comments from such a person that were "irrational" and "unwise".

You have singled me out, so please give me some examples and explain why I am being irrational and unwise?

Don't seem to see any of these examples? So you are just shouting blind accusations?

On to the rest of your reply…

Are you 100% rational? Most people are not, maybe you are an exception. Some scientist may want to study you in a lab if that is the case.

I never said I was "100% rational" – have to admit I do not know what that would be - but you said that "religious people are more rational". So this now an attack on me - you are claiming to be more rational than me yet I am able to point out the "irrational" and "unwise" behaviour of the theist mindset.

I didn't say religious people are rational,--no one is technically,-- but some are more rational than the atheist talibans here.

So your argument is, no one is rational, but some are more rational than others.

OK… using your logic - no one on this site is an idiot, but some are more idiotic than others.

Makes sense.

Oh… look another soundbite… "atheist talibans" – very nice.

And just because you have a religious belief it doesn't mean you cannot be a sensible person overall

You have to define "overall" for me here in this context – the very foundations of the theist worldview are based on a make believed eternity without any evidence.

I have no doubt that some religious people are sensible enough not to jump of a high building just because someone told them too – erm, but some will fasten bombs to themselves and blow themselves up for their religious beliefs – very sensible the devout are sometimes.

This takes belief and religion.

Do you know any atheist that will blow themselves up for their beliefs?

For some the text is only a framework to construct meanings. The verses are complex triggers or raw material upon which multiple levels of meanings are created. The verses are not seen as conveying a single layer of meaning.

So we can just make the verse mean anything we want it to? So they are pointless, but very dangerous.

In that way they read the scriptures more like poetry and literature than science. It is a different method of reading.

I read Shakespeare just like that… but I do not live my life according to Old Bill.

A different method of reading? This is just making it up as you go along to make the passage fit whatever you want it to.

Remember what I said about irrational and unwise – I think you are demonstrating it here.

muslim I debate with online says the text has to be engaged subjectively. It didn't bother him that others may get different meanings because he believes that "revelation is individual". We have strong disagreements on many things especially over religion. The debates even turn abusive at times, but I do respect him as a very wise and rational man in many ways.

Is that because he is religious like you, so you think anyone who can have faith in something without evidence is a "very wise and rational"?

How wise is it to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden?
How wise is it for me to persecute someone because of what I think the fairies are telling me?

It would be stupid… would you agree?

Yet people can persecute homosexuals because it is written in the bible. This is how wise and rational a theist can be. And all this without any evidence in the authorship of the book they claim has all the answers.

You, along with many people here, take a very narrow view towards religion by seeing it only as explanatory theories about the world and treat scriptures almost like fundamentalists.

This is a rather strange comment.

If the holy book is not explaining the world and how we are suppose to live then what is the point of the book?

If you cannot treat the scriptures are the true word of god, what are they then?

Just words written by man over 2,000 years ago who knew less about the world and universe we live in than my 10 year old nephew.

The words in such a book would be worthless. If they are not written by god they are just words that can be misinterpreted for someone's own political gain. If they are written by god, why are they not clear and so require interpretation? (Which no group can agree on)

And, there is more to life than science and understanding the universe. For example, the human condition, about which science is mostly silent.

So you think living in the Middle Ages would be a good thing then?

You think the science of medicine is a waste of time. You use a computer but think that it was god who gave it too you?

No, this is from science and understanding… not the bible.

Without science the middle ages is where we probably still be, when you could be burnt at the stake for believing in the wrong type of god. For even having a copy of the bible in your native language so you could read it for yourself.

I am holding back on what I really think of such views… you are showing me why I am not a fan of religion.

Religion appeals to most believers on an emotional, not intellectual level.

You were saying earlier about the religious people being more rational and wiser than an atheist?

This statement says you are ignoring intelligence (unwise) and following emotions (not rational)

Do want to try this argument again?

He mouths it off just because it is part of the package.

Wise and rational? I do not think so.

When encounter with believers who take the allegorical approach, some atheists tend to get mad because they can no longer attack them with the usual arguments, that is childish.

I do not get mad for those reasons… I will happily debate a theist on religious matters without getting mad – sarcastic maybe, but not mad.

See ya

Lee

231. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57793 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 3:17 am

Frankly I find that some sophisticated religious people are more rational and wiser than many "born again atheists" here.

Rational? – To believe without evidence just because someone (or book) told you it was so? No – not rational

Wiser? – To believe stories written in a book over 2,000 years ago as fact and that the writers of this book have a better understanding of the universe than modern science? No – not wiser.

Of course, you are targeting the "born again atheists" - not sure who they are myself, care to give some names and examples why you think they are "unrational" and "unwise"?

Cheers

Lee

232. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57791 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 3:09 am

"born again atheists"

Nice sound-bite. Meaningless but sounds good.

233. Face to faith

Comment #57790 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 3:00 am

Oops... Sorry Logicel.

I am ashamed of my grammar. I am ashamed of many things.

Unfortunately – I'm crap at English, which is a shame since it is the only language I have.

I hope I am getting better though with practice on this site….

Please correct me when I am wrong, and if I ever see you with your skirt jacked into your "panties" (as you put it) I promise not to laugh, to be polite, and to suggest a correction.

Cheers

Lee

234. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #57787 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 2:47 am

And who the heck is Stephen?

Was he one of the 12 Disciples of Jesus but got kicked out of the group because he couldn't sing and then was replaced by Ringo Star?

Something like that…

Lee

235. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #57747 by LeeC on July 20, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Still no sign of Mark?

Oh well, maybe it was too good to be true.

Anyway, thanks JC for the tips on posting links,

I will now test out my new found knowledge.

Of course, since you say I need to post first the link, this could be embarrassing if I fail.

Not to worry.

I found someones "blog" (I am getting old, where did this name come from?) that discusses Noah and the flood.

Interesting stuff – if you like that sort of thing.

It can be found here

Cheers

Lee

236. Face to faith

Comment #57744 by LeeC on July 20, 2007 at 9:18 pm

The criticisms about the gaps and imbalances in Dawkins' work have already been well made

What!!!

This means that when Dawkins said there is no evidence for god, gave arguments against god, that Richard should, in order to be balanced, also mention the entire make believed stuff that keeps religion going on and on.

No… religion has had it own way for far to long, it is time to grow up.

[Dennett] His claim, for example, that religion has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to society may appeal to anxious liberals

So people blowing themselves up because of their religious believe does not cause harm? The fact that the religious nutters are all waiting for the "end of days" and are more than happy to speed it up has no risk what so ever?

Yes religion causes harm, and we should be very worried about it.

All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles.

Yep… these theists should be ashamed of their beliefs, discussing the existence of fairies should only be done in the private homes away from anyone else and it must have no affect or influence on how I run my life.

The theist should keep the nonsense to themselves.

If only they would.

Lee

237. Darwin or Design

Comment #57727 by LeeC on July 20, 2007 at 7:52 pm

I've got the time written on a piece of paper, whenever I want to know the time I just look at the piece of paper and it tells me the time...

Oh... it's stopped.

238. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #57726 by LeeC on July 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Good Stuff... I miss the English humour.

It is with humour that we might beat these idiots.

Lee

239. Darwin or Design

Comment #57593 by LeeC on July 20, 2007 at 4:51 am

Hi Q,

My own fault... I saw this thread the other day but I thought I would listen first to a few shows.

And now I am post number 99 and 101?

Oh well, better late than never?

Lee

240. Darwin or Design

Comment #57590 by LeeC on July 20, 2007 at 4:25 am

Oh well… looks like I'm late onto a debate again.

I thought I would listen to a few shows first…

So SciPhi
(if Billy has not scared you away? – I was hoping you find the thread Billy – he he)

Can you point me to the show where you ask the ID chaps for evidence for their designer? Or asked who designed the designer? Since it "obvious" the designer could not come into existence by chance, because you say evolution is wrong and cannot answer how man evolve, or any life form for that matter.

No- methinks you did not ask the questions – didn't think of it? Why is that?

You like to ask silly questions to the evolutionist about "what would prove evolution wrong?" and seem to think this is a really good question…

its a bloody stupid one, there are millions of things that could prove evolution wrong…my favourite is a little "God Made This" sign engraved on the inside of every man's skull… and why not make it in the native language of the person… wow god is great!!! - this would be great evidence for a designer, but alias… NO… ID is crap, it is not a science… does it give ANYTHING that can be tested? Please point me to the show that the ID chaps give predictions that can be tested? Please… go on?

The problem for you ID guys is no evidence has been found because evolution is RIGHT!!!

Think it isn't? Then give some observation that falsifies it then… oh, you cannot – in the 1800's you thought it was the eye… (WRONG!!!) Now you pick on any piece of biology that has not been studied 100% and say LOOK GOD DID IT!!!. You are looking for the gaps…. Oh dear… same old, same old….

I am onto show 4 – can you tell me if it is really worth listening to anymore of this god preaching nonsense…. Give me evidence for ID and I will believe it… show me something that disproves evolution and I will throw it away… until then, just go away and do some reading – The Blind Watchmaker is a simple enough place to start.

Lee

241. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56988 by LeeC on July 18, 2007 at 4:10 am

I thought this thread was supposed to be dead? Still life in the old dog yet?

Philip,

I do hope that my argument about animals evolving over time seems a bit silly for a god that is supposed to be able to wave his magic and divine hands and thus it should simply be done.

And it makes its not only silly… extremely cruel and heartless as well, especially if god had the power to create us all fully formed.

The only means for improvement using evolution is the death in painful ways of your ancestors, and the "luck" that you are able to survive longer and breed quicker than your competition because of some "random" change/mutation.

If this is "god's method" then he is more of an evil B*stard then the bible makes him out to be.

Hey – but what do I know… not even got a GCSE biology certificate me.

See you around.

Lee

242. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #56982 by LeeC on July 18, 2007 at 3:27 am

Excellent stuff.

I assume god would need to swear on a holy book in court, to ensure he tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but etc etc?

Which holy book will he choose?

Lee

243. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56592 by LeeC on July 16, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Hi Mark,

I mentioned the Hanging gardens to show that people, outside the bible, were writing about Babylon at the time. That is all.

As I have said, I am happy to use the bible as I would any other historical document. You have to remember who was writing it and why - they may have another "hidden" agenda.

Lee

244. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56509 by LeeC on July 16, 2007 at 4:55 am

Kids Hey!!!

They don't know they're born.

Must go..

Lee

245. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56504 by LeeC on July 16, 2007 at 4:41 am

I'm with you Billy on this one.

Mark wrote: -

For hundreds of years sceptics said that Babylon was a myth, and since the Bible spoke of it as a real place, and of its king Nebuchadnezzar as a real person, the Bible must be wrong.

Erm… now people may be debating the existence of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, but that is not the same as debating the existence of the city itself (and this debate is more about the location).

So not sure who doubted the existence of Babylon, and I too would be interested learn more.

It is true that Western Europe did their best to "lose" the writings and history of the great Greek philosophers along with other great teachings and learning (lucky for us that the Muslims kept a copy so the Europeans could rediscover this "new" teaching)

So it is not these "hundreds of years" that are being discussed between losing the writings and re-discovering them again in the Middle Ages? It would be a little unfair to claim the intellectual high ground on this period in history.

Once "discovered" though, the Greek writings discuss Babylon and so these are independent accounts outside the bible to suggest that Babylon actually existed. (Strabo and Diodorus are just a couple of names I found who wrote about the Hanging gardens).

So I would be surprised to find many sceptics out there who would question several sources regarding a city in history.

Also, I find it more surprising to suggest that just because it is in the Bible, the "non-Christian" scholars would dismiss the bible as a source of information - I certainly wouldn't. (I also remember watching a TV documentary by David Rohl who actually used the bible just like any other historical document so this seems like a strong claim – the religion of god does not come into play here so why not use the bible?)

Anyway, I also realise you have only just come back to the thread and we are all bombarding you with questions… hope we don't scare you away – sorry.

Lee

246. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56288 by LeeC on July 14, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Hi Billy,

Not so fast… I have read a little more of the bible last night, and I think we are safe.

The "beauty" of men with long hair is mentioned in the bible:

"Now in all Israel there was no one who was praised as much as Absalom for his good looks. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.

And when he cut the hair of his head—at the end of every year he cut it because it was heavy on him—when he cut it, he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels according to the king's standard." 2 Samuel 14:25-26

Now according to some web-site (must be true then?), this is around 2.3 Kg or 5 pounds… this is a lot of hair, (Cannot believe it myself) so he was a true Hippy at the end of the year.

So God likes the look of men with long hair (Not sure if I am worried about that or not) but we are OK in the eyes of the LORD.

And lets not forget the other famous hippies in the bible.

Samson:
"That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man." Judges 16:17

Having Long hair is good for your strength and health – it is written in the bible.
(Not sure about intelligence though, Delilah asked Samson before what his weakness was, and she tried to kill him, she then did it again, and the fool Samson then told her the secret to his strength on the 3rd time of asking)

Then of course, the most famous hippy of them all, no not John Lennon, Jesus!!

Have you ever seen a picture/painting of him with short hair?

No of course not…
(God's own son was a hippy? – I have not found anywhere in the bible which confirms this yet – but how can so many painters be wrong?)

So, do we have ourselves another problem with the bible?

On one page it says long hair is a "disgrace" and on another it is seen as beauty and source of strength.

Surely we just cannot pick and choose out of the bible the passage we like, so something is wrong here.

Oh well, I do not think my long hair is the only problem St Peter at the Pearly gates will have with me…

Peter : "Sorry Sir, you cannot come in"
Me : "But look, I cut my hair and everything… last minute at the barbers, confession with the priest and all that"
Peter : "Sorry Sir, your name is not on the list, so you cannot come in."
Me : "Damn, now Ozzy will laugh at me with my short hair in hell"
Peter : "No sir, Ozzy is in already, he is at the bar."
Me : "Damn and Damn"

See ya

Lee

(I noticed, we are not onto any serious discussions yet, but we are catching up on the other thread bit-by-bit and this time we really are debating the bible – so not cheating as was suggested by J in post 1280)

247. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56146 by LeeC on July 14, 2007 at 3:13 am

Philip

Now as far as I know Nazarite means 'he who vows to grow long hair and serve god', (Ozzy Ozbourne?heheh!)

Tell me it isn't so!!!

I thought Ozzy was a nice man who just played his music for the pleasure of others. OK – a couple of bats no longer have to worry about having a headache, so he could never turn out to be serving god?

Oh no… I have seen the movie, its true… Ozzy is working for God – he kills Satan's son to save Heaven and Earth!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpZSZw3be4U

I will have to cut my hair short…. NNNNooooooo


Cheers

Lee

248. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56145 by LeeC on July 14, 2007 at 3:01 am

All,

You know what... I may be slow (a "dim"?) but with all these comments from Billy, JC, Philip and Q quoting the bible - they seem to point to contradictions in the bible - things don't seem to add up – it is not logical – there are errors – observations have been made about the world that go against what has been written in the bible – and this cannot be right, not if it was written by a god, so I am beginning to think that it was written by men who did not actually know that much about the world?

I know this may come as a shock to you all… so I hope you were all sitting down when you read this. I should have warned you first – sorry.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I hope Mark can help me understand because as I have shown before, I am not very good at reading the bible.

Lee

249. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56142 by LeeC on July 14, 2007 at 2:35 am

Hi JC,

Hope I didn't seem to condescending about the Brights – I like the idea of what they are doing, it is just the word "Bright" – although I don't know a better word since of course we would not want to use a "negative" such as "non-believers" or "atheist"- these are statements about what we are not – it does not say what we are - how about the "Enlightened" – no doesn't work erm – I guess these people thought long and hard and Bright was the best.

Anyway, it sounds fun – don't really have these types of clubs were I live – the Aussies I know are only interested in "Footy" (a strange game, but surprising interesting to watch and the only sport I know you get a point for missing the goal).

On a different note – how do you get those web-links labelled as a word?
It looks a lot better than a nasty web address all the time.

See – I am not a Bright, but rather Dim.

Lee

250. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55971 by LeeC on July 13, 2007 at 4:23 am

So does the debate really to start up again?

I don't believe it!

I have seen a few false dawns before though. Theo for example promised a return - but this has not happened yet. Jesus I believe also made a similar promise, to return a 2nd time within the lifetime of those present and knew him(?) (I cannot quote verse and chapter, only what I hear – I will look it up)

I read also that to resolve the issue of a 2,000 year absence - and the fact that everyone who knew Jesus in the flesh (so to speak) are now long dead - the resolution was to "curse" a poor Jew (well he did make fun of Jesus right?) who is now wandering the Earth - immortal - waiting for Jesus' return?

Nice... I have been reading so much junk recently - I need the focus of a good debate.

Welcome back Mark,

I will briefly come back on your question, though I owe Lee a detailed response as well

I had nearly given up hope on a reply to my post... it will take me time to get up to speed on the bible again, I have been reading some strange debates of late. (Thanks Q BTW - Dianelos is a funny card - too much Sci-Fi and Philosophy is not a good mix – although it looks like he has retired from the game now.)

Anyway Mark, I will give you chance to settle in before hitting you with my questions (again) I have so many outstanding…

On the matter that Philip raised, and also your reply.

I personally have no problem at all believing in "everyday" events in the bible. A town here, a man there. As you rightly pointed out, just because we cannot prove a piece of dirt was named "Nazareth" does not mean it did not exist.

However, if you are to use the bible as evidence for a supreme God, well - then we had better test further some of the book's claims.

"Minor" issues such as no evidence for a town is one thing, no record of a single man is another. Neither is that important in itself.

It also depends on how much importance is made of the book or writing in general.

Philip (did you say you read history at Uni?) will understand that when reading history – you sometimes have only one document or writing on a particular event. And sometimes this one passage may be debated by many.
However the debate is normally on something "minor", did a battle take place on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, or did the battle happen in field A or B, or did Lovelace betray the Yorkists at the 2nd battle of St Albans since no eyewitnesses mention him at the battle.

Such historical documents are not held to prove the existence of a god, and no one has died fighting over the meaning of them.

It is very different with the bible though.

If a contradiction appears – then the bible has problems (if it is meant to be taken literally). If an event cannot be logically rationalised – then the bible has problems (or requires evidence as to how this may have occurred).

So I will give you Nazareth, it is not important – but I raise you this: can you answer why Jesus did not come back in the lifetime of his followers as promised, or did I just hear this wrong?

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" Matthew 16:28

This is evidently not referring to his resurrection after 3 days, since this at the time was not his kingdom.

Interesting…

Lee