401. Fleabytes

Comment #134067 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 7:33 am

I have met David in person, though, and he's quite an affable chap. The sort of guy you'd probably enjoy a pint with.

Doubt it. I dont drink for starters!
Was David crying to you then?

PS, In case you did not notice, this is not a church, but I dont think a "friend" of David would have the clarity of vision to see that.

Quetz, can we take one of those wafers and drive a stake through it? I remember hearing a story of a child who was punished once for puking up jesus.

David, self praise is no praise.

Maybe David has multiple personalities like god, who so loved the world that he drowned it

402. Fleabytes

Comment #134063 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 7:28 am

It's his mum. She and I had a thing once...

I remember, and apparently she enjoyed it

403. Fleabytes

Comment #134044 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 6:57 am

C'mon Richard (post 1061] David was only asking why Paula's post was not on the front page of the website - it's hardly a hanging offence to go off on a rant!

Are you David or his mum?

404. Fleabytes

Comment #134038 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 6:50 am

I can't see that working. Apart from identification issues with the corpse (crucifixion was common, so the wounds would not suffice), I can already imagine the answer:

"No, that isn't Jesus, by definition. He ascended into heaven. The Bible says so."

And there was me thinking I was the only one who thought he would say that :-)

Of course, he never said what it would take for him to believe that a corps belonged to the invisible sky zombie.

I have a slight hunch that he will not accept anything.

If god knocks on my door tonight and asks if I fancy a kick about in the park, I would believe in him. Why does DR insist we need scientific proof of god? Oh that's right, he puts his fingers in his ears and tells us we want what we dont want.

405. Fleabytes

Comment #134023 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 6:35 am

You must also admit that you have a particular way of wording things that immediately ruffles one's feathers. If you used language that didn't instigate such negative feelings in the posters, you most likely would get a quite different tone of response.

Yes, it would be nice if he came here to honestly explore his position, but he is here to just lie and wind up. He wont even answer questions posed to challenge his beliefs. Therefore, I dont think he has anything like Aspbergers syndrome, he is just a dick!

406. Fleabytes

Comment #134014 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 6:27 am

Oh no, David has a staunner now that RD has addressed him

know I will never convert you, and I would never try to (that's God's job) but you could persuade me - then I would repent in public and convert to atheism.

Really? You said you are as certain that Jesus exists as you are thast your wife does. When asked previously what it would take for you not to believe, you said it would take you seeing the non resurrected body of jesus. And you would insult everyone's intelligence in that comment by suggesting you are open to being shown to be wrong.

Get professional help. Let's face it, you are not that important. Also, why would anyone write a review of you book on your parochial piece of toilet paper when they can get international coverage?

Seriously David, get some help?

407. Fleabytes

Comment #133961 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 4:14 am

As you well know the term fundamentalist is a perjorative term used by atheists to descibe any bible believing Christian and conjures up images of rednecks about to crash planes into buildings etc.

Well, some of my christian friends would use that term on other christians, so get it up ye and kiss ma hairy swingers ya fud! Oh, sorry, that may have offended your homophobic side!

A few of my friends have actually used words like "muppet" to describe DR.

It is interesting that SG mentioned some of DR's flock are revolting too - erm, I mean, not happy with his control over their media.

408. Fleabytes

Comment #133955 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 4:08 am

Or could the boot be on the other foot? I read the complete OT at least once every year. In the letter I do acknowledge that there are difficulties and things that are less comforting and convenient (something you neglect to mention). But I still honestly find the picture I have painted much more accurate than the selective caricature of Dawkins.

Sorry, which part of god drowning the world, killing babies, ordering ethnic cleansing and forcing people into cannabalism actually made Robertson feel all warm and fuzzy about him? or to use his words "a God of mercy, justice, beauty, holiness and love, a God who cares passionately for the poor, for his people and for his creation",

I hope so. But you miss the point. Why would Dawkins criticize a God that does not exist? Who would be listening? Why not write a book criticising the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Gosh, perhaps because no-one believes the flying spaghetti monster told them to invade Iraq, and the menu of the FSM does not encourage people to be ignorant.

Again however the major problem with this review of the 4th letter is that you do not really review or engage with some of the major points

Were there any?

More bizzarely you do not discuss NOMA and Stephen Jay Gould, another major argument in the letter. And nor do you discuss the whole issue of the mathematical probability of God, nor the great prayer experiment.

Good point, they all either argue against god, or argue that he is not knowable by reasonable means. Some days - depending on how Robertson is feeling, the idea of NOMA goes against his own position - in fact, some days - even in the same post, Robertson endorses it.

409. Fleabytes

Comment #133951 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 3:55 am

Where would you put the FCoS in terms of its beliefs in comparison to say Pat Robertson, the Paisleys, Alistair McGrath and Bishop Spong?

I would definately put them up there with Pat Robertson and Ian Paisley.
Did You read that link that reports someone cancelling theirs subscription to DR's pravda because he was endorsing witchcraft?

410. Fleabytes

Comment #133940 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 3:31 am

It is however, nice to let the record show that we have asked questions that have gone unanswered.

Absolutly. It is all here and can be cited any time Robertson wants to lie to his fundie friends about us

411. Fleabytes

Comment #133925 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 3:12 am

The word "unchristian" is sometimes used to mean unpleasant, ungenerous, mean-spirited.

I'm not sure why we should credit "good" behaviour as christian. Jesus was selfish (Mark 14). I dont see what is particularly good about someone who wants to stop people using reason and conform to their small minded way of thinking. I dont see what is good about the christian message on condoms in Africa, or threatening folk with hell - like has happened to someone I know in Robertson's Church.

More lies I see David. Oh well, god has set a good precedent (2Chron. 18:19-22). Oh, and what about that promise that there would always be a decendant of Solomon on the throne of Israel? (2 Sam.7:12-17, 1 Chron. 22:9-10). By Lying, David is only following his imaginary friend's example.

Now, who would like to join me in a game of "Spot the Glaring Differences?"

Sounds like an idea for a game show. Paul Daniels could host it and the Archbishop of Cantebury (dressed in a gold Leotard) could hit a gong everytime Robertson tell a lie

412. Fleabytes

Comment #132964 by BillySands on February 25, 2008 at 1:06 pm

SRWB,

I agree Mark had a position to defend and that clouded things a bit for him (although he did concede on the internal dating of Ezekiel). His stuff was by far more challenging than anything the Flea has come up with, and unlike the flea, I enjoyed his stuff and learned from it (Mainly that the "best" prophecy in the bible is not prophecy at all)

413. Fleabytes

Comment #132755 by BillySands on February 25, 2008 at 7:25 am

Can you tell me of even one instance when a theist has offered any evidence, subjected their views to any evidence, or provided any predictions based on a "god centered universe"?

Mark Tauton did try. He used alledged prophetic fulfillment, but in the end kept moving goal posts and changing meanings to suit his claim. He can be found in this long thread.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg

414. Fleabytes

Comment #131932 by BillySands on February 23, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Must say I did wonder about that - named after a mixture of Orange William and "Slimmer of the year 1981"

Now I'm just asked if I'm a proddy or catholic atheist :-)

415. Fleabytes

Comment #131926 by BillySands on February 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm

I was brought up on the wrong side of the tracks with a bottle of Buckie in one hand, wearing a Rangers strip, and singing "the Sash"

Yeah, with a name like mine, I got it from both sides.
'Moan the berrz!

416. Fleabytes

Comment #131910 by BillySands on February 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Well Done for exposing yourself to that. You must need a cup of Tea. Philip shall sacrifice one to you.

Maybe this is paraphrasing, but it all sounds familiar, so here goes..

1) Creation- it exists.

Does it? To call it creation presupposes a creator. Therefore, this is circular. Why reject the natural?
Do we even know the universe had a beginning? So, add argument from ignorance to this too.

2) Artistic, so there must be an artist.

Really? and what is this art I wonder. Ever seen that picture of Jesus in the dog's arse? Was that done by an artist I wonder?

3) There is purpose and beauty in the Universe.

And that would be? To cause suffering perhaps?


4) Human mind and spirit- evolution cannot explain consciousness.

And his proof of this is.....? David, the fact that you dont know or can not concieve how does not prove this. Do you actually know anything about the brain? Without using google, do you even know what the substantia nigra, corpus calosum or the temporal lobes are?
Once you have grasped basic neuroanatomy, we can then discuss how drugs affect conciousness and the effect of genes and their products on consciousness. Here's a wee question, how do anasthetics or caffiene work? By magic? Or by physical interaction with physical receptors. Anywat, since you have brought up evidence in your latest letter, demonstrate how conciousness can not be explained by evolution. Also explain why there are animials that display varying degrees of consciousness. Is god trying to decieve us?



5) Morality- how do we know right from wrong? Because we're made in God's image, of course.

Reciprocal altruism amongst other things. However, you need to validate yoursupernatural claim.
If you think that god is the source of morality, then why do you think homosexuality is wrong, but I dont?
Demonstrating absolutes would also be necessary.
Where do monkeys get their sense of justice from? http://richarddawkins.net/article,1676,Monkeys-show-sense-of-justice,Dr-David-Whitehouse-BBC

6) Evil- without the Bible to explain it, evil would make our world hell on earth.

So, saudi arabia is hell on earth? Does evil actually exist? You jump in assuming it does? An act that you disaprove of does not make it evil. I hope you disaprove of flaying, but it was an acceptable part of worshiping Xipe Totec.

7) Religion- we all have a sense that death is not the end.

I dont! that's that argument knackered! I have a sense that Kylie wants to jump me. Using your logic, she must!

8) Individual experience of God.

Replace god with deity or historical character of choice. They cant all be real.

9) History- there's no doubt Jesus existed, or that he was resurrected..

Well, why am I not convinced that Jesus even lived. Why am I not convinced that the gospel writers knew jesus - for most the bible does not even make that claim. Paul's "evidence" was a hallucination. The accounts differ too.

Oh, then there are all those other gods who were supposedly resurrected:
Thulis of Egypt
Inanna of Mesopotamia
Attis, Adonis, Prometheus, Persephone, and Dionysus of Greece
Krishna, Sakia, and Buddha of India
Tammuz of Syria
Hesus of the Celtic Druids
Quirinus of Rome
Alcestis of Euripedes
Atys of Phrygia
Indra of Tibet
Crite of Chaldea
Odin of Scandinavia
Baal of Phoenicia
Mithra of Persia

So, why is that of Jesus more believable?

There are afterall hundreds of witnesses that have seen Elvis. You can even get first hand accounts from them. Do you believe Elvis lives? I mean, its not as if the the witnesses are making bizarre claims like he came back to life.

417. Fleabytes

Comment #131882 by BillySands on February 23, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Apparently, its the DOCTRINES in the WCF that they subscribe to.

I suppose he thinks the 6 day creation is not doctrine either. However the authors obviously thought it was. Isn't theology a larf?

You would think anyone with any integrity would refuse to take it.

418. Fleabytes

Comment #131864 by BillySands on February 23, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Mussolini was a good Catholic wasn't he? We don't hear his name mentioned in the same tone as the Great Atheist Satans, Hitler and Stalin. I wonder why not?

Ah yes, unfortunatly David has his defense against catholics ready. He has sworn an oath declaring the pope to be the antichrist at his ordination.

There were some nice antipapist comments on his website that he tolerated. However, if an atheist dared comment on too many threads, they were threatened with a ban. A similar punishment was threatened for pointing out inaccuracies in David's comments on atheism.

David, we would be interested in knowing if you would have been allowed to be a minister without taking the westminister declaration of faith.

If you disagree with it (and I dont see why), does that not make you dishonest?

419. Fleabytes

Comment #131757 by BillySands on February 23, 2008 at 6:30 am

Of course, he is right in some respects - "God" cannot be proven empirically. At least I havent heard of anyone finding out what Gods height, weight, specific gravity, or anything else is. Even the worst charismaniacs dont even go that far.

Althought that doesn't stop them arguing whether god is complex or not.

Now, trivial I know. "Putting God to the test" I am sure.

Of course, we should ask David to justify why testing god is wrong. If his faith is based on real evidence like he claims (but never demonstrates) he should be able to do so without reference to the bible. If he cant, then his view is entierly presuppositionalist and not a rationally derived belief. Of course he will twist this statement to avoid answering the question. Infact, he will use the last sentence to justify not answering the question. In fact......

Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

How about making a square circle or making 2 plus 2=97 without changing the values?

420. Fleabytes

Comment #131731 by BillySands on February 23, 2008 at 4:51 am

So David, you were making your offer to RD more than it was. We could summarise your book thus: Robertson attacks points Dawkins never makes and fabricates quotes by him. The book is totally lacking in any substance whatsoever.

Any way

Paula you need to realise that telling partial truth is the same as telling a lie. There are numerous instances of this type of thing in your review and I am not going to point out everyone of them.

I think that if this were true you should. But I think we both know that you have lied!

And I also pointed out that it was not fair to judge atheism by the behaviour of some of its advocates who are 'eccentric, extreme and in need of some kind of therapy',

I give you "in his usual cheap and nasty way now tries to equate this kind of abuse with my church. Again stomach churning ignorance and hatred. This is the kind of abuse and sick mind that you are feeding, Dr Dawkins." http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1326,God-Hates-the-World,Westboro-Baptist-Church#51912
or how about the quote I gave you the other day when you reacted to a serious challenge on the historical accuracy of the nativity by calling me amateur, illiterate and having a hatred of the bible. Then on your own thread, you repeatedly refer to psycological deficiences in most. The trouble is that when challenged at at, you either ignore it or tell the person to get therapy.

Pauls neglects to mention that I wrote that some of the responses were intelligent, thoughtful and expressed their disagreement in a constructive and stimulating way of course

Actually, you only said it to wind others up. And it has been pointed out already what you said about one of these people (_J_). Not very flattering was it?

The lengthy discussion of the subtopic ' is atheism a faith" is interesting. However it is completely ruined by the fact that you accept the Dawkins definition of faith as being de facto something unreasonable, or something that is contrary to or in spite of, the evidence.

And you never provided any evidence otherwise. I challenged you on Micah 5:2 and surprise surprise, when it became apparent the verse was taken out of context to make it look like Jesus had fulfilled a prophecy, you got abusive and refused to continue the discussion.

But the key question is 'why do you believe there is no god?

Slaps head and groans! Lack of evidence! You are making the claim, therefore you have to demonstrate it! Do you think it is reasonable to start from a postion of belief without evidence? If so, why do you not believe in vishnu? If not, why don't you believe in vishnu?

And the answer usually is �quot;because there is no evidence" show us the evidence'. But then you will only allow the kind of evidence that can be proved in a lab.

Now really David, this really is not a very clever thing to do - presume what any of us would accept as evidence. That is not an argument for your case. Do I need scientific proof that you exist? What controlled experiments have I done that have lead me to the conclusion that you exist?
You not only have to provide the evidence, but if you think that your evidence is something less obvious, then you also have the added problem of demonstrating that your "evidence" is indeed a valid way of looking at things. So, how do you know the supernatural actually exists?
We need assert nothing.

In other words atheists are de facto naturalists and materialists. It is from that particular philosophy that your atheism comes. It is your creed. You cannot prove it because it itself is unprveable in your own materialist terms. You assume it and you engage in the circular argument of 'prove to me that there is something outside of the material, and you must do so in a material way!'.

This is a rant, not an argument. You are setting up an atheist straw man. You now have to back up that statement - good luck. If you prayed for someone to grow a new limb and they did, I would believe. How is that defacto materialism? I presume you are going to change the goalposts now with out justification - most probably, you will ignore this though.

Not got time for the rest, but a depressingly familiar scene is playing out here

And I would never say that to someone either. Why do you post it as though that were my opinion?

That is exactly what you said when you called dead babies disposable. The comment has even been linked to!

421. Fleabytes

Comment #131348 by BillySands on February 22, 2008 at 9:47 am

Let's play spot the internal cointradiction in Davids posts.
At least Christians believe in free speech.

Vs

The only reason we have a moderated board is to prevent the kind of language and nonsense that our good friend Billy delights in

and

He [Ken Ham] is actually one of your best allies - he will split churches and make fools of many of us. Let me put it this way - this is one Free Church he will never be allowed to speak in (at least not without someone sensible to give a rebuttal)". http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1617,The-Fleas-Are-Multiplying,RichardDawkinsnet,page4#69493

422. Fleabytes

Comment #131293 by BillySands on February 22, 2008 at 7:37 am

Billy, Steve Zara (sharp as ever!) beat me to it - it is http://web.archive.org as he points out. A great place to waste gazillions of hours poring over old web sites.

Oh well, I doesn't seem to be archived. It was around november 06 to jan 07. I ever remember complimenting some of the posters on their pleasantness.

Anyway, it just confirms to me the lack of honesty David has

423. Fleabytes

Comment #131260 by BillySands on February 22, 2008 at 6:23 am

Here we go

So comments about the Pope, homosexuality

So, you will not be discussing the root of morality or religiuous hatred then?

The only think I can ask is that people actually read both TGD and The Dawkins Letters to see if your perceptions are actually perceptive or the result of prejudgement.


Sounds like an attempt to suggest there is something wrong with Paula's thinking. Is there room for doubt with you?

You are the one making the claim. You are the one who has to support it!

But the main point I was making in that chapter is that there is more likelihood of someones Christianity being a stumbling block to their career, than atheism, at least in Britain. Its funny but when I wrote this I did not know how deep this runs in some areas of the British establishment

And if I remember correctly, you used an anectdote concerning a creationist biochemist that you would not name - not very compelling. You imply - but dont specifically state elsewhere that creationism is not science. Given those standards, would you be surprised if this held him back. However, you then blatantly lie and say that there is a witch hunt going on against creationists in the UK. As a biochemist who knows some creationists, I pointed this out to be a lie and provided examples of how the faculty bent over backwards to help this guy as he struggled in his work. I pointed this out before you published your book.
Tell me, would I be excluded from being the next pope simply because I am an atheist?

As for the rest of it, where is the substance?
What about the times you deliberately misrepresent RD - are they off topic too?

424. Fleabytes

Comment #131172 by BillySands on February 22, 2008 at 3:12 am

Thanks Steve

425. Fleabytes

Comment #131165 by BillySands on February 22, 2008 at 3:05 am

I have no wish to waste any more of your time. Nor to try to engage in a debate which you clearly do not want.

Yeah, that's why we keep asking for evidence. Why do you keep ignoring questions? Could it be because you cant answer them? Or are you just so far up your own arse that reason is wasted on you?

I gave you a list of unanswered questions above - and epeeist is still waiting too.

Does anyone think David actually believes what he writes - surely that would mean he is insane?

426. Fleabytes

Comment #131154 by BillySands on February 22, 2008 at 2:44 am

The only reason we have a moderated board is to prevent the kind of language and nonsense that our good friend Billy delights in

Now David! You had moderation before I came on, and I never swore once or abused people on your site. What a lying little fundie you are.
I remember Scottishgeologist saying there may be some way to retrieve these old posts. If he is reading, could he remind us how, so I can show David to be the lying cretin he is - like I need to show that here.

Hope you dont tell those "science" students that you swore an oath that the world was created in 6 days, or that you believe the world was different before the apple incident that god set up.

427. Fleabytes

Comment #130923 by BillySands on February 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm

At least Christians believe in free speech.

Do you indeed? Ken Ham, the westbourough baptists spring to mind? Wait a minute, did you not say you would not allow Ken ham to speak at your church? "He is actually one of your best allies - he will split churches and make fools of many of us. Let me put it this way - this is one Free Church he will never be allowed to speak in (at least not without someone sensible to give a rebuttal)". http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1617,The-Fleas-Are-Multiplying,RichardDawkinsnet,page4#69493

Note however, unlike you, I quoted you faithfully and even left in your little qualifyer. I know that must annoy you, because if I left it out, you would accuse me of quoting you out of context, then I would have to point out that attatching conditions to allowing Ken Ham to speak does not constitute free speach


David, you are pathetic!

And I am still unclear as to why he was banned. Invite him to return and respond. I'm sure Josh and others know how to get hold of him.

You were told why. Is this another lie David? Certainly pretending to be someone else is not very honest.

As we say in Scotland 'facts are chiels that wanna ding

.

No we dont. We speak English. At least you got the quote right this time - good fundie!

428. Fleabytes

Comment #130788 by BillySands on February 21, 2008 at 9:30 am

Here are instructions for being a Wee Flea:
1)Drop Pants
2)Pull
3)Jerk
4)Repeat.

Being a member of the anti-fun church, he would only be allowed to do that as long as he didn't enjoy it

By the way David, I presume your name is an attempt at a wind up? I now know that it was both arrogance and stupidity that made you choose it

429. Fleabytes

Comment #130786 by BillySands on February 21, 2008 at 9:27 am

Even my 'reasonable' post above seems to offend people, as does the very thought of yours truly posting anything. (fundamentalist, bullshit, homophobic etc.

Is anyone offended? Is David projecting/lying? Were the fundies applauding Ken Ham's homophobic poetry or not?

Looks like nothing has changed.

David, remember this comment of yours? http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1197,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Robert-Winston,Today-BBC,page5#47314

It will be interesting for those who do not know you to see your idea of politeness and debate

And Epeeist deserves an answer to his question. He's asked many times, and been polite about it as well.

I think he has not answered it because it would demonstrate what a bullshitter he is.

I'm still waiting to hear why homosexuality is wrong, why he thinks suffering came into the world after a dodgy incident with an apple - despite fossils showing it was already there and how Isaiah 7:14 is in any way whatsoever about jesus - whose existence is as certain to him as that of his wifes - amongst other things.

Maybe if you answer some of these respectfully, you may be allowed to play with the big boys.
And you know full well many did not agree with you getting banned - you naughty little liar! I was one of them.
I think you do atheism a great service - your inanity has made me even more convinced there is no god and I think it could help others too.

Perhaps I should also point out that as editor of The Monthly Record, our denominations magazine, I offered Richard Dawkins a 1,000 word article to respond to the Christian 'flea books' from his own perspective. I guaranteed that this would not be edited and that nothing would be published without his agreement beforehand.

I presume you would of course be publishing a response to it in the next issue? Given that you have lied plenty about RD, I have to ask, what sensible individual would give you the opportunity to perversly twist his words?

430. Fleabytes

Comment #130712 by BillySands on February 21, 2008 at 7:25 am

1) It is not difficult to offend the fundamentalist atheists on this website. Everyone who dares to disagree with them is de facto offensive. I have never come across a more self congratulatory, back slapping, 'look how wonderful we all are and how dumb everyone else is', mindset. It is fundamentalism (whether religious or not) of the worst sort.

No, just offensive folk with chromosomes to spare are called offensive. There have been theists on before that have not been branded offensive, but why let facts get in the way of your little rant?

I am not going to waste hours responding when Josh will remove it, if it is deemed offensive to atheists (you are such a sensitive lot!).

Yeah, cliché time. Sounds a bit like your site when you threatened to ban folk. Then, of course you deleted everything everyone ever wrote. One rule for you and one for everyone else â€" very delusional of you David!

but the thread which contained almost 900 posts has mysteriously shrunk to about 600.

Yeah, I wondered that too. I thought you were deleting some of your offensive ones to cover your tracks.

Thankfully I kept a record of all the posts and still have them all.

Shame you didn't keep the ones on your site that were denying evolution and having a go at the pope.

You may wish to play your silly censorship and banning games but all it does is prove my point about fundamentalist atheist intolerance. Thanks

Priceless. You keep telling yourself that. What about Wee free intolerance? I have had some refuse to speak English to me. Lets not even mention Ferries TV and swings on as sunday- or the fact that the last time I was in a "free" church they were all applauding homophobic poetry.

My publisher did not lie when they put quotes from this site on my book.

But you did lie repeatedly about what RD is supposed to have said. Nevermind, I'm used to you dodging the issue.

I cannot promise not to offend you

Well, you could take a social skills course. And I though Jesus demanded respectful behaviour â€" then again, this is you we are talking about.

but I can promise to take seriously what she has written and I thank her for taking to time to read and to respond in such a way. And I also promise to try really hard not to wind y'all up.

Yes David, we believe you - NOT! Call it experience, or just the fact that you have just called us all intolerant and fundamentalist â€" and lied to us â€" I think more than a social skills course is needed!

David Robertson (author of the Dawkins Letters) - Banned
St Petes - Banned
The Wee Flea - Banned
Clearthinker - soon to be banned....

And still talking pish and generally being the intellectual equivalent of road kill!

431. Fleabytes

Comment #130633 by BillySands on February 21, 2008 at 3:41 am

I assume you mean materialist evidence? Which kind of begs the question.

Do you have any other? Can you demonstrate why it is valid, or is it just a deep seated conviction in the same way the yorkshire ripper felt convicted?

Nice of you to try and tell us what you think we think, which brings us on to your name ....

Is it arrogance or insecurity that makes you label yourself so?

432. Fleabytes

Comment #130626 by BillySands on February 21, 2008 at 3:19 am

Robertson obviously has quite a battle on his hands. From the linked article:


One reader wrote to cancel his subscription and accused Mr Robertson of "endorsing witchcraft".

Don't laugh! That would be ungodly. Voldermort would not be amused.

Too late!

433. Fleabytes

Comment #130426 by BillySands on February 20, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Incidentally, last year Robertson was quoted in a British paper (sorry no source or date, but I did read it!), whilst on a visit to the Hebrides, as saying that the Free Church of Scotland (Wee Free) should basically lighten up a bit as it appeared too devout to outsiders.

I think this is the one

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BQUFRIXBQF5PZQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/14/nchurch114.xml

By the way, his name is an anagram of Sodden Vibrator

434. Fleabytes

Comment #130154 by BillySands on February 20, 2008 at 6:33 am

I'm still reading through this, but so far it is excellent. Have you thought about posting the review on Amazon?

435. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128250 by BillySands on February 16, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Congratulations guys.

You know, I know a minister not that far from Glenrothes. His name is an anagram of "Sodden Vibrator" or "Rev bad nits odor"

436. Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

Comment #122283 by BillySands on February 5, 2008 at 5:08 am

Hi Baeoz,
It is indeed the female that transmits the disease, and she has no red blood cells.

What happens is that when the mosquito has an infected blood meal, sexual stages of the parasite get jiggy and fuse in the gut. This then forms a ookinete stage which burrows through the gut and forms an oocyst. Inside the oocyst, the a stage called the sporozoite develops (many per cyst). These migrate to the salivary glands and are injected when the mosquito feeds. It is the sporozoite that infects the hosts red blood cells.
So, the mosquito's immune system does see the parasite, so it it can kill or retard it, then it stops/reduces transmission of the disease.

437. Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

Comment #122265 by BillySands on February 5, 2008 at 3:19 am

Why then does malaria still persist in Africa? Because the mosquito that spreads it is also adapting, says Esteban Parra: Genetically, humans are "in a race with disease, a very dynamic race."


That and the fact that for some resistance genes, it only works if you have one copy. If you have 2, you suffer from other diseases. If you have none, you get malaria badly. So, to work, we need the "non resustant" gene to be present too - this means a large number of the population have to be non resistant. Which illustrates that natural selection is not about acheiving an optimal situation, and argues against "theistic evolution".

A similar problem is predicted for the use transgenic mosquitos that are resistant to malaria. It is thought that those carrying only one copy of the gene are fittest. This is called heterozygote superiority.
Hopefully, herd immunity would then kick in.

438. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120352 by BillySands on February 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

interesting link here on how pagans had come up with so called christian values (well, the good ones anyway) http://nosha.secularhumanism.net/essays/sierichs6.html

439. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116673 by BillySands on January 27, 2008 at 3:45 am

What totally evil stuff.
What a bastard god is for not providing evidence of his existence, then blaming his followers.

440. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114931 by BillySands on January 23, 2008 at 7:42 am

J

Perhaps you could highlight the agenda and explain why creationism is not science. You could point out his teachings that satan is the author of Darwinism, and that Darwinism is the basis of decay in society. His anti homosexual stand could also be pointed out.

To Ham, if one bit of the bible is not true, then none of it is. Perhaps someone is aware of quotes on AIG that points out that he thinks the literal bible is the ultimate authority on everything, and that he wants people to accept this view alone - despite evidence to the contrary.

That way, you are not restricting speech, but raising public awareness - just a thought.

441. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114866 by BillySands on January 23, 2008 at 4:34 am

SG
I would estimate about 200 turned up in glasgow, with about 30 leaving at the break.
I was told that he expressed disapointment on his blog that very few people were interested in buying his shit - oops I mean propaganda - nah come to think of it....

There were certainly a few freaks there. About 30% of the attendees vocalised their support of his most intolerant bilge. Hopefully that means most of the rest were not too comfortable with it.

442. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114852 by BillySands on January 23, 2008 at 3:50 am

I went to see this moron in Glasgow last year. I was disgusted at his misrepresentation of science and intolerant agenda.
Fortunately not too many turned up and a lot left at the interval.

The tautology such people tend describe is "what survives survives." Well, that is true. But it ignores the issue of why something survives, which is selection.

Indeed, we can also know why some things survive - antibiotic resistence being a good example. We can do experiments to test what makes something survive too.
Typical fundie bullshit

443. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111301 by BillySands on January 14, 2008 at 8:56 am

At last! Someone got the joke.

Shame the Christians dont get it though

444. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111284 by BillySands on January 14, 2008 at 8:26 am

If Bill Gates invented a religion, it would have horrendous licence fees, be based on way-out-of-date ideas, it would look vaguely attractive but would be full of inconsistencies and would fail people all the time. It would contain re-packaged ideas from competitors, would attempt to put competing religions out of business, and would get clogged up with dogmatic add-ons, and would be vunerable to corruption.

Such a religion already exists - christianity!

445. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108358 by BillySands on January 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

This is an interesting article on the non historicity of the trial http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sanhedrin.html

Incidentally, Jesus speaking at the trial contradicts the claim that Isaiah 53 is about him - it claims he was slient -There are many other reasons not to believe it is about jesus - not least its post-exilic context

446. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108349 by BillySands on January 6, 2008 at 2:26 pm

We are just going to have to agree to differ

Is that because he has no evidence to back up his claims? Evolutionary hypotheses concerning morality can and have been tested sucessfully. To agree to differ is just running away.

as morality requires reason and both self and other-consciousness.

Last time I looked, various animals displayed these traits. What evidence do you have that they dont?
More importantly, what evidence do you have that morality requires reason. What for example is rational about declaring homosexuality immoral?
What about those nasty OT laws?

On the "historicity" again, you cant even demonstrate the "gospel" authors were first hand witnesses(paul even tells us he wasnt). In a court, their evidence would be nothing more than hear say.
Most of the life of jesus is made up. All the so called prophecies he is supposed to have fulfilled are taken out of context (no way is micah 5:2 saying jesus will be born in bethlehem, or I saiah 7:14 claiming he will be born of a virgin)

What would your preferred method be? Stick 'em all together in an ideological gas-chamber?

I think your god would prefer a real gas chamber.

I think J used this verse earlier, but you seem to have ignored it first time round:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

You claim there must be reason for morality - rationalise that!

447. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108189 by BillySands on January 6, 2008 at 8:05 am

Why wait so long?

Well, he had to wait for Constantine to come along and make up christian doctrine to allow him to control his empire - more plauasble thay any christian claim

It amazes me when anyone claims that God is omni-anything. That is a pretty extraordinary claim to make, whatever the attribute.

Yes, you cant claim he has all 3 of his omnis and make any coherent argument

ADH I have to echo Quetz words - are you serious? Lets take the historicity. Most sources are not contempory, most meerly mention christians, and Josephus (a devout jew) calls jesus the christ - that's blasphemy - you know, the thing jesus was allegedly crucified for. In fact most (including christian) scholars think Josephus's testimonium flavium contains late chrisian interpolations - many think it is all made up

448. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108183 by BillySands on January 6, 2008 at 7:48 am

Concerning point 2, I read this delusional puke recently http://gadgetvicar.typepad.com/gadgetvicar/2007/12/thats-my-king.html#more
You would think such a god would be more apparent

449. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108181 by BillySands on January 6, 2008 at 7:39 am

Since an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god could of course NOT allow it to happen

It always amazes me that christians think that their god is omnibenevolent. He is supposed to have got pissed off with the world and flooded it - not to mention killing babies in Egypt.

Yep, God so loved the world that he drowned just about everything on it and sent them all to hell with out hope of forgivness

450. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107764 by BillySands on January 5, 2008 at 8:45 am

Dodger seems to be quiet on the abuse promoting bible quotes. Can we assume he agrees, or is he just doing the usual theist thing of ignoring it and insisting a god who drowns his children (metaphorically or not) is a good parental role model?