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

51. Comment #58217 by newatheist on July 24, 2007 at 3:38 am

34. Comment #57782 by Ash Roskell

Well, Mr. Dawkins, What an embarrassment of riches you have in your acolytes….Most of them claim to "love" you! Not just what you say; but YOU!

Where? Exaggerating much?

40. Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell

avoid aggression or sarcasm in debate; it demeans both the argument and the man.

Better re-read your first comment then. Dickhead.

Oh no I'm demeaned. But then let's be clear. I'm not debating you, I'm berating you.

Your first post was the biggest load of shite I've read in ages (mine included). I'm 41 years old and I'll never be embarrassed to admit I've been moved to tears by some articles on this site, or that Richard Dawkins has lifted a weight off my shoulders by opening my eyes to the wider world of atheism and antitheism. I owe the man a great personal debt.

Back to comment 34 –

(To Mr Dawkins) …Have you ever done anything to discourage such sycophancy? It's not healthy, surely?

Hello God? Same question to you…

Other Comments by newatheist

52. 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.


Other Comments by LeeC

53. Comment #58220 by Ash Roskell on July 24, 2007 at 3:54 am

I must say, it's beginning to get a bit lonely out here (though I'm sure that comment will prompt a crack about having God to keep me company). Looking to the arguments in reverse order:

Hi Goldy, you should check the posts again. I mentioned athiest regimes, and the hell they have unleashed, in response to Nails' argument that religious regimes seemed to be the worst perpetrators of such atrocities. You have made, almost, the same point as I; that there are only people, when it comes to warmongering. However I would challenge the notion that ideas stand alone for their validity.

TO ALL: We often find in the history of ideas, not just their flaws or perfections (both of which are often overlooked) but a strong indication as to where they will lead. Indeed we find that we have often been there before. Cicero said that, without our histories we are, "as little children, knowing not from from whence we come or wither we go". We ignore the history of ideas at our peril. Darwin & Newton had to think "outside the box" & in ways that were inconceivable to their peers in order to form their theories. By learning from them we discover ways of moving beyond authodoxy & ways of thinking for ourselves. We have grown lazy in our approach to science in particular. We have to learn, not WHAT to think, but HOW TO THINK. That is why I read books, both old & new. Be suspiscious of those who encourage you to do otherwise.

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 ;-)

Hi Bonzai, for your last posting, see the above paragraph.

With regard to lapsing into the 'religion as a cover for violence' argument, putting it rather simply, I know. I am dissapointed. I had come to expect higher thinking from you. I stand by the point that, in a world without religion, people will still find hypocracy, lies, zealousness, etc. There will still be suicide killings, atrocity & war faught in these ways.

Your legal argument interests me. I am afarid I don't, at the moment, have the link for this so please accept my apologies; but you could Google it easily enough. Professor Simon Greenleaf was the founding professor of the Faculty of Law at Harvard in the USA. He, as an atheist, looked into the very issues you raised about reliability of statements made by the disciples, the apostles (only one of whom was an eye witness)& their historical value, for which he took consultation from the best historical scholars of his day. His agenda was to disprove the hypothesis of the resurrection of Christ. By the end of his toil he concluded that the story was true & described it as, ". . . in my experience, the strongest legal case in history to this day." He died a Christian.

You & I could quibble over legal definitions,testability, etc. from now until Christmas & get nowhere. So I point you to this, a better mind than mine, more suited for the task. I would be interested in your thoughts. I hope you are prepared to look at the EVIDENCE you say you seek? By the way, Bonzai, you keep putting the phrase "eye witness" into my mouth (3 times). I never said it. I said "witness statements". I hope you can see that this is more than just a fine distinction.

You also ask, "how does God work?" That is too complex a question for me to answer fully here but I do not shrink from the question. For the benefit of Nails too who uses the allegation of a lack of clarity being used to hide falshoods, I would point you to two sections of scripture: from Matthew 10:13 on, in which the disciples ask Christ why he speeks in parables. He points out that some people will never be willing to listen, others will listen but with prejudice or a reluctance to give up their sins, some will listen & find God & there are others He describes. He explaines the mechanism by which this works using an analogy of grain, & He sums up by explaining that parables are a means of both illustrating the truth & providing the mind with something to contemplate, for further growth. I can tell you that a fire is hot & will burn you. But, if you knew nothing of fire, you may be tempted to put your hand in. If I first showed you the scars on my hand & explained how it was burned, you may not need an object lesson in order to believe. Also, in the context of my statement that, "God does not work that way", which was in answer to Nails' accusation that God was punishing him with his mother's illness. I point you to Revelation (the whole of it) or to Matthew 24. Nails claims to have read the Bible. So it should have been clear to him, from these passages & inumerable others, that God will judge no one on Earth, punish no one, until the day of judgement. In addition I should remind you both that God is love.

Hello Nails. I think many of your points have been answered in the above paragraphs. I apologise for making assumptions & writing a premature obituary on your mother (perhaps God's answer to you was "Yes & Amen"?). However I stand by the point that, in a forum such as this, it is probably wiser to stick to generality & specifics without going into the realm of the deeply personal & emotive about which no other individual can safely comment or have proper knowledge by which to argue.

"Ditto", is incorect, factually speaking, for reasons already explained.

If you have the time to read Dawkins, then you have the time to read history & the philosophers. Perhaps you should just come out & acknowledge that you don't want to?

Kind regards to all (even the abusive one) Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

54. 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

Other Comments by LeeC

55. Comment #58226 by Ash Roskell on July 24, 2007 at 4:15 am

Hello again LeeC, sorry I missed your much longer, & very well written (no patronising intended, honest) set of questions. I hadn't realised that there was another page. An entertaining read, if I cannot subscribe to the sentiment. Sadly I have not the time just now to give you the answers which your "tome" deserves as I must leave for London. However I promise to do my best upon my return this weekend (or Monday at the latest) which will also buy me some time to think ;)

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.

Best wishes, Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

56. Comment #58228 by newatheist on July 24, 2007 at 4:21 am

Amazing. Such typical religious B.S. from the learned Ash.
When someone dies of an illness…
43. Comment #58078 by Ash Roskell

You cannot say that she was not prevented from more suffering perhaps

When they survive, it's…
53. Comment #58220 by Ash Roskell

perhaps God's answer to you was "Yes & Amen"?

WOW! GOD CAN'T LOSE! (Love the use of "perhaps" in both cases – more typical garbage.)
It's brilliant! This sick idea has the big G answering your prayer either way. If you can buy this crap then the Bible is obviously a walk in the park.

More from comment 53

God is love

Whatever. Harry Potter is a wizard. Says so in a book.

Other Comments by newatheist

57. 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

Other Comments by LeeC

58. Comment #58256 by pewkatchoo on July 24, 2007 at 6:54 am

I wonder if friar william would be happy that his supposition is now used as a basis for arguing against the complexity of god! Poetic justice or what?

Note to self: must read more Popper.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

59. Comment #58260 by pewkatchoo on July 24, 2007 at 7:06 am

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 embarrasment by inventing a tenuous link to some martyred geek in the bible. What a plonker.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

60. 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

Other Comments by LeeC

61. Comment #58339 by Goldy on July 24, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Hello Ash. Sorry for the slight confusion - too many posts and too quick a pair of eyes :-) I'm glad you appear to have calmed down - your first post sounded like an OT prophet with your doom and gloom ;-) Like I said, you almost sounded like me :-D
If I may "there are only people, when it comes to warmongering. However I would challenge the notion that ideas stand alone for their validity.
" - as you say, we are almost in agreement. God is an idea, as is, ahem, ideology. It's in the translation, as it were. I don't see religion as a truth but as an ideology. It works for some, not others (you have posted in the others website - you can see there are a few of us).
Again, if I may "History also teaches us that the "religion" of atheism is an anomily" - Buddhism? Seems to have lasted a bit longer then this Christianity thing at least. And flares, as you'll no doubt have seen, are still here - they never really went away, just went quiet for a while. As for Cb...I guess evolution took it's route and we now have email :-)
LeeC pretty much asked a lot of questions I have been wanting to ask. I'll let you answer them. I dare say for references you'll bring up Josephus (that how you spell it) though I always felt he was tenuous at best - especially given the millenia of copying and recopying by clerics. Maybe if there is an unbiased reference to the earthquake that occurred at Jesus' death (I think - a bit rusty on my NT) then maybe I'll be more open to scriptures.
Right off to work I go :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

62. Comment #58377 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 4:52 pm

51. Comment #58217 by newatheist on July 24, 2007 at 3:38 am

Better re-read your first comment then. Dickhead.

A little harsh I thought. If we allow the conversation to break into insults so easily we might as well not bother with any conversations and just type expletives. Ash is new here, let's give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt, at least for now please.

53. Comment #58220 by Ash Roskell on July 24, 2007 at 3:54 am

I must say, it's beginning to get a bit lonely out here (though I'm sure that comment will prompt a crack about having God to keep me company).

That's because most theists only have three or four answers to everything and they get very sick of being questioned vigourously (or just intellectually beaten) on here. Somehow I think you will be a source of inspiration to us all.

With regard to lapsing into the 'religion as a cover for violence' argument, putting it rather simply, I know. I am dissapointed. I had come to expect higher thinking from you. I stand by the point that, in a world without religion, people will still find hypocracy, lies, zealousness, etc. There will still be suicide killings, atrocity & war faught in these ways.

Sorry, don't agree. There is only two possible causes of a suicide attack, japan showed us the first in their piloting skills (was it an accident they just fell out of the sky?) no, they really believed that they had to defeat the American army to safegaurd the lives of their families. And a few thousand year s of teaching the masses of the 'honour' of the ultimate self sacrifice.... the other is total brainwash where god wants you to blow up as many infidels (who are not a threat to you at all) and you will be rewarded with x amount of pleasure for eternity.
In all likelyhood then, no religion = no suicide bombers. Kamikazee is slightly different as there is a real threat factor there.

Hi Goldy, you should check the posts again. I mentioned athiest regimes, and the hell they have unleashed, in response to Nails' argument that religious regimes seemed to be the worst perpetrators of such atrocities. You have made, almost, the same point as I; that there are only people, when it comes to warmongering. However I would challenge the notion that ideas stand alone for their validity.

You need to make a major distinction here. Hitler was Catholic and persecuted the Jews. That is religious in motivation (cause) and action (effect).
H was also a megalomaniac and wanted to rule the world, something that is not religious in nature. I fact I think the bible actively discourages this (but I won't trawl for a quote).
Stalin was atheist but didn't persecute because he was atheist or in the name of anti-religion.
Gengis Khan, same answer.
As I have previously posted and has been said many times before - religion doesn't make you good or bad. But bad religious people are the worst of the lot.
Look at Americas flourishing evangelic movement, they fleece the poor in gods name and make themselves rich. With these riches they buy more TV time and influence politics.
Even bad ideas from good people become worse with religion, look at the pope's stance on condoms and the AIDS crisis in Africa.

If you have the time to read Dawkins, then you have the time to read history & the philosophers. Perhaps you should just come out & acknowledge that you don't want to?

I enjoy reading, biology is my work and my hobby so I can legitimately combine them.
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.

Other Comments by Nails

63. Comment #58439 by Goldy on July 24, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Genghis, as far as I've read, was a religious man. Think his wife was Nestorian, or was it his mother? I forget. As I read it, he felt he had to rule the world - that was his mandate from heaven. Sounds religious to me.
But, Nails, that has no bearing on your argument - your points are all pretty valid :-)

I must say, it's beginning to get a bit lonely out here (though I'm sure that comment will prompt a crack about having God to keep me company).

I would have but as He doesn't exist, I felt that would have been a bit rude of me ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist this time!

Other Comments by Goldy

64. Comment #58445 by Bonzai on July 24, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Nails

As I have previously posted and has been said many times before - religion doesn't make you good or bad. But bad religious people are the worst of the lot

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.

Other Comments by Bonzai

65. 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

Other Comments by LeeC

66. Comment #58504 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 4:14 am

Goldy, thank you for setting me straight on the Genghis Khan religious issue. Basically it was more of a guess than anything else as I havn't researched the issue, much like people who claim that Hitler was of no religious disposition.
Bonzai, Islam is something I would love to learn more about but most Muslims i know seem very reluctant to talk about their faith; either that or I have gained an unfair reputation and they don't want to end up debating with me....

One question I would love a theist to answer is how they can substanciate the biblical accounts.
After all, Jason and the Argonaughts is an old story with some elements of truth that are historically accurate. It was passed down by word of mouth and possibly altered, made more fantastic for generations before being written down. Maybe in modern times we have added a new level of drama for TV, I don't know. But is the bible any different?
After all, the gospels were written after their deaths and there is no written account from Jesus himself. There is suprisingly little written evidence from the Romans etc, so maybe his life was not such a big deal and the furore has arisen after his death.
Recently there has been an uncovering of a gospel of Judas - but how can that be if he hung himself three days after the betrayal?
if there are more gospels, as has been suggested, were they based on the actual teachings of the disciples or just words put in their name?
How can you prove their authenticity or accuracy?
Was the current edition of the bible ruthlessly edited by the early papel administration? And how does this effect its impartiallity as a historical document if others have been destroyed which could either corroborate or refute the biblical claims? Why were the other gospels destroyed?
Long question I know, please entertain me on this one. I need to know.

Other Comments by Nails

67. Comment #58507 by Quetzalcoatl on July 25, 2007 at 4:24 am

Nails- a lot of the othe gospels were not included in the NT because they disagreed about Jesus. Some thought he was mortal, not divine at all. There was a gospel of Peter, I think, that never got incorporated. It seems that the early Christian elders, at about 300AD, got together and had a DEBATE about what books should go in. Laughable. Makes you wonder what books went in grudgingly, as a compromise between different factions. This is one of the reasons why anyone telling me the Bible is the inerrant Word of God will get laughed at.
I understand that there is a Judas gospel, but I know little about it- can anyone else help out?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

68. 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

Other Comments by LeeC

69. Comment #58517 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 4:44 am

LeeC - Almost like a whale. The only book of his I have read so its not much of a recommendation really but I enjoyed it.
Maybe I am a little closed in my mindset with regards to literature, a friend bought me a Carl Sagan book a few years ago (Cosmos) but I havn't even opened it. 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.
With regards to the 'clan' statement I made earlier (for which I have been severely censured!!) i wish to make it clear that I have no wish to see atheist churches or workshops - if any of you have joined gaming clans then you will probably understand my sentiment. i feel the analogy was apt because sometimes it feels like the is hoard of atheists here ready to obliterate any theists who cross the path.... just like playing Halo 2 on x-box live...
But I will endevour to be more careful with my language in future to avoid siuations like this. Where I foresee a potential mindfield I will try and explain myself further before I finish the post.
In my defence, my actual line was "We are a clan if you like " - emphasis added later.
Quetzalcoatl - I saw a documentary on the Gospel of Judas a few months ago and it went into suprisingly little detail about its actual content especially for a National Geo programme. Basically, the crux was that Jesus told Judas to betray him, it was god's plan. Still don't get how he had the time to preach this as he was dead a little over a week later, allegedly. The other gospels would certainly be a useful read, but I guess their must have been a good reason for their suppression. there is also evidence of the early popes changing the direction of the teachings, linking Mary Magdeline with an un-named prostitute is a classic example and only serves to further prejudice women. How different life in Chriatianity would have been if there had been a leading woman in the bible....

Other Comments by Nails

70. Comment #58519 by Quetzalcoatl on July 25, 2007 at 4:51 am

The other gospels would certainly be a useful read, but I guess their must have been a good reason for their suppression.

Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for their suppression was simply that the church leaders didn't like what they said.

The slurring of Mary is a classic example, a reflection of the attitudes at the time. I may be making things up now, but I seem to recall that there may have been a book by or about Mary that was one of the ones to be left out.

As for Judas- what evidence do we have that he actually died a week after Jesus was crucified? I can only think of the Bible, and that's a bit dubious, isn't it?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

71. Comment #58664 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

As for Judas - what evidence do we have that he actually died a week after Jesus was crucified? I can only think of the Bible, and that's a bit dubious, isn't it?

That is exactly my point.

Matthew 26
The Plot Against Jesus
1When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2"As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."
3Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. 5"But not during the Feast," they said, "or there may be a riot among the people."

Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus
14Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
The Lord's Supper
17On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"
18He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.' " 19So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.

20When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

22They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord?"

23Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."[a]

Matthew 27
Judas Hangs Himself
1Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. 2They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor.
3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."

5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=31

Maybe less than a week then....

Other Comments by Nails

72. Comment #58670 by Goldy on July 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
I believe this is when the Gospels were chosen and how Christianity should be. Typically, the British missed it.
I beleive some of the Gnostic Gospels were a tad hard to follow too.
All history is written by the winners, I believe. Some religions did themselves no favours by not writing anything down.
Lee, no apologies (58502)! I hate typing and asking too much as I get confused. Good to see what's in my head put forward in a clear fashion. Also, now think maybe CB was replaced by mobile phones more than email...
I'm still not 100% sure that the fact some leaders were "athiest' or "religious" makes any difference to the grand scheme of things. And I'm still wondering if Buddhism can be used to explain that athiesm is a bonafide religion, as such :-) I'm not dogmatic, I can be swayed...

Other Comments by Goldy

73. 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

Other Comments by LeeC

74. Comment #58779 by newatheist on July 26, 2007 at 5:36 am

Hi Nails (Sorry to butt in late.)

As you said in comment 39 "seems like I have to defend myself"…

51. Comment #58217 by newatheist

Better re-read your first comment then. Dickhead.

A little harsh I thought. If we allow the conversation to break into insults so easily we might as well not bother…

Okay I had my rant pants on, but this wasn't just an insult. Coupled with the preceding line and the one that followed it, it was also a "cunningly abbreviated" commentary on Ash's manifest hypocrisy. ; ) Although no doubt the humour was lost in the harsh tone.

You said it (comment 35). He must've been drunk. In a post dripping with sarcasm and outright "smart-arsery", Ash condemns admirers (yes, admirers) of Richard Dawkins for heaping praise. God forbid. And this from a Christian: a scathing attack on adulation. It's hypocrisy squared! (But I should be fair. There's every possibility Ash went straight from this site to a few christian forums and slammed them for swooning at the sight of the pope or Benny Hihn.) At least _J_ admitted he'd had a few red wines when he said he loved RD (comment 3). Armed with this, Ash says

Most of them claim to "love" you! (emphasis added)

And then he says to you …
40. Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell

don't you think that sweeping generalisms and sarcasm are some sort of fig leaf for flimsey arguments?

So anyway, now Ash has sobered up and wants to debate religion, history, physics and politics (if he gets back on). I'll read with interest. But he's a twat his debut was shite, and I calls 'em how I sees 'em.

Other Comments by newatheist

75. Comment #58931 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 5:48 pm

74. Comment #58779 by newatheist on July 26, 2007 at 5:36 am

Hi Nails (Sorry to butt in late.)

Okay I had my rant pants on, but this wasn't just an insult. Coupled with the preceding line and the one that followed it, it was also a "cunningly abbreviated" commentary on Ash's manifest hypocrisy. ; ) Although no doubt the humour was lost in the harsh tone.

Maybe I'm the one who should be sorry for criticising you too easily and acting like I own the place.
Ash's comments were futile and contrictary, but I guess we are used to it on here now!!
I must confess I thought something very similar but I wanted to play devil's advocate.
The reason is quite clear, I suggested he read Mendel, he says he hasn't but has read Steve Jones and RD. I was waiting for him to trip himself up again but his god must have teleported him back to heaven.
As anyone who has any real interest in biology knows, Mendel described the rules of inheritance by observing peas and flowering patterns, amongst other traits. If he has seriously read RD or anyone else in biology/genetics then he wouldn't have to read Mendel, it would have been summerised of rhim already...
no doubt this one was lost somewhere as well.

Other Comments by Nails

76. Comment #58941 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 6:03 pm

How bizarre that I didn't get the Occom's razor quote, had to bloody google it!!!
My gran taught me about lex parsimoniae, that simple rules are better than grandious dogma. Strange, she was a very religious person.
*shakes his head*

Other Comments by Nails

77. 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

Other Comments by LeeC

78. Comment #60301 by Nails on August 1, 2007 at 2:17 pm

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

So back to the god question, I do not know how to falsify god, this theory is therefore not scientific

History has shown us one way to falsify god and it has been used more than once. just start the rumour, make it more fantastic than normal people would believe and then threaten them with eternal damnation if they don't agree.
Or, if the god illusio is prodominant, just tell everyone he has spoken to you and you alone in order to make the world a better place.
Easy peasy.

Other Comments by Nails

79. 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

Other Comments by LeeC

80. Comment #61557 by Nails on August 5, 2007 at 6:01 pm

think Nails you are creating a god with your method, not falsifying one.

But as there is no evidence, the whole premise is false therfore it is falsified (or is that a quantum leap in logic)
Anyhow, I'll keep checking to see if Ash returns, though I doubt it.
Must be feeling lonely.
They do run away easily, don't they?
Maybe it is time we fought them in their own backyard, so to speak....

Other Comments by Nails

81. Comment #61648 by LeeC on August 6, 2007 at 5:16 am

Hi Nails,

If you can tell me where they hide, I will be over there like a flash.

Although, I suspect, even though we will be polite, we will not be welcome.

I am beginning to think it is something I say - so many theists just stop talking to me on these threads - they always say that they are busy, but promise to come back soon with a reply (or just plain ignore me).

Well, if they can wait 2,000 years for the second coming, I can wait a few more weeks.

Now who is starting to have faith and believing the rather unlikely?

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

82. Comment #62008 by Ash Roskell on August 7, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Hello, LeeC & Nails, I apologise for the delay in getting back to you, as I have been all over Britain & far from computer consoles. I have no intention of fleeing the arguments, I assure you. I have much retorting to do but, when I last wrote, to you Lee, with practically an essay in response to your challenges (on the Sunday, as promissed incidentally) it did not go through when I submitted it (as the blurb above the box warns may happen). I had written so much that I didn't have time to do it again and I almost lost the will to live! I have learned my lesson and will therefore launch a series of postings, so forgive me if continuity seems a little odd. I will do my best to be clear, if not always gramatical.

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

83. Comment #62010 by Ash Roskell on August 7, 2007 at 11:45 pm

Hello all, I would just like to get a little niggle or two off my chest. The term "God", whether you believe in Him or not, is a proper noun; like Aladin or The Count of Monte Cristo. If I was referring to "a god", fine, no capital letter to begin the word. Is the obtuseness over this general point prevelant due to a desire to insult or due to a fear of being seen to acknowledge the existence of God in some way? In either case, surely, people can see that refusing to obay simple rules of grammar does not alter any of the arguments in any way? It simply reveals something about the writers. I wander who will have the character to take this argument on board?

Also, I admit to being sarcastic in my first posting when speaking in general terms of the qualities of comments on this site and about Richard Dawkins too. However, I have treated each individual with whom I have spoken, if rigorously, with politeness and due credit. When addressing an individual, particularly in argument, I believe it important and right to afford ones communicants dignity and courtesy (even if I can't spell very well).

I stand by my earlier comments in this regard and I will have no dialogue with the abusive. It dissapoints me to see Nails so easily swayed by the argument for treating people in this manner. I think any intelligent mind can make the distinction in the terms of my case here. Such attacks do demean both the argument and the man.

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

84. Comment #62012 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 12:12 am

Hello LeeC, to get to the heart of the questions you raised: Though I feel you are attempting to tie my hands with your definitions of what you see as "scientific" or "evidence" I will do my best to address your points.

If I told you that the Lord God would move the sun from its position or make the moon disapear and reapear on the other side of the planet tomorrow; & then we saw that this had happenned on the following day, surely your response would simply be to say that there was a scientific explanation for this phenomenon & explain it in these terms? God's hands are tied by your arguments as he is the creator of all that you would use to observe, define & subsequently explain the event; namely science?

You say you don't want to use philosophy in looking at these questions, yet both rules of thumb which you apply to the test are philosophical ones, conceived by philosophers. That is to say, Popper's "disprovability" & Ockham's "razor".

Ockham (or Occam - or other spellings - takes yer pick), who was a monk, by the way, (but it would be wrong to use that as an argument in this context, given that the only educated people of the time were monks, lawyers or royals), by employing the principal of his razor would have come to the conclusion that these events on the sun or moon were acts of God. Further, to quote his law, "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessitly", he would have extrapolated this, not out of an innate desire to prove God's existence, but simply because it is the simplest explanation of the event.

So are we allowed to talk about philosophy or only what you define as science? If so, I repeat, what are your definitions? I want a word with the ref' cos you're not playin' fair.

And there's more.

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

85. Comment #62014 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 12:23 am

Hello LeeC, again, I seem to have made myself unclear with my referrence to the work of professor Simon Greenleaf. I was not evangelising on the basis that a one-time atheist came to Christ through his studies of history and, what he called, "witness testimonies". And I would challenge your comments with regard to his age and motives as somewhat cynical perhaps?

I was suggesting that you look at his ACTUAL WORK in this regard. After all, legal testing is one of the most "scientific" (if admittedly flawed in some ways) processes for examining people's behaviour, motives and truthfulness. It's not about what you think of him. Look at his work and decide on the credibility of it after that.

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

86. Comment #62017 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 12:31 am

Also, LeeC, I was intrigued by various comments you have made to others which seem to imply that you are witholding certain elements of your arguments, depending on the responses you elicit from me. Is there some reason as to why you should not feel entirely confident in your stance? Or is this just a tactical exercise for you? Why not just say what you believe? For my part, I simply, read the comments (skipping the ones I have designated as abusive) & type what comes to me; which I pray will be guided by God. Go on, spill the beans ;)

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

87. Comment #62024 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 12:48 am

Hello LeeC, once again, NAILS I am comming to you, don't worry - one at a time :)

Your comments about the Christian stories not turning up in any books other than the Bible was amusing to me because you seemed to overlook an obvious point. The Bible IS lots of different books, compiled together into one volume. They were written at different times and in different languages and locations. They corroborate (I hope that's the right spelling?) each other. Consider; when the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed in the 50s, not one contradiction from the existing scriptures was found in them, though much corroboration was.

And why is it that all of you appear to be such conspiricy theorists? Why do you assume that because X volume does not make it into the final Bible, it has been "SUPRESSED"? Check your definitions guys! If the other volumes of which you speak HAD been supressed, then they would have been destroyed; or, at the very least, we would be aware of historical accounts of the attempts to distroy them, since they still exist for all to see.

It does not seem to occur to anybody that there may be perfectly legitmate and obvious reasons for not including certain (inacurate or bogus) books from a compilation. Oh no, of course, all Christians are evil, and therefore their motivation must also be evil?

Further remarks on this topic to follow . . .

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

88. Comment #62028 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 1:01 am

As to Roman histories, LeeC, you comment specifically that we do not get accounts of scriptural events in Latin or Greek. Being a fan of Roman history I am aware that they were notorious propagandists. The only people who were not Roman and get mentioned in their best historical records are those who either went to war with the Romans or who profoundly impacted Roman politics. Christ did neither of these things. Or, at least, the latter did not take place until centuries later and obviously was not enacted by Christ in person. There will not be many exceptions, if any, that you will be able to dig up to disprove that rule (though there are bound, probably, to be one or two that I can't think of just now).

It is also interesting, don't you think, to note that the New Testament comes into English translated from the Greek?

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

89. Comment #62034 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 1:32 am

Finally, LeeC, (I think :) ) You have narrowed your search for truth down to two or three fields of enquiry: physics, law & history, but primarily physics. Tell me, do you think first of physics when dealing with your relationships? Is physical proof all upon which you can rely when falling in love? Or do you search deeper, inside yourself for more durable truths which cannot be defined in mathamatical terms at times such as these? Knowing something of your partner's personal history is helpful, and the law tells you if and when you can marry, or what other rights a couple or their offspring may have. But this can only take you so far and tells you nothing of the love you may or may not feel for another.

If this is so, why is it so ludicrous to look into ones own heart and see what dwells therein. There are many wrongful claims made about Christians & I cannot defend every one. Christians do not hate homosexuals, or any one else for that matter.

Christ brought in a new order, fulfilling the prophesies of the Old Testament, and demanding that we treat all people with love. There is a difference between having a belief that certain practices are wrong, and condemning others for practicing them.

There must be a whole raft of things that all of you believe are wrong for you as individuals. But, just because you believe a thing to be wrong, I do not assume that you condemn others for doing it. But if like-minded people gather in a group and say they believe that certain practices are wrong, they should not be condemned for condemning others, as that is a prejudiced assumption. If a Christian condemns another person for anything, he is failing in his Christian duties. This, makes him wrong as a Christian; he must then repent of this sin and confess it to God. It does not make him no longer a Christian; it just makes him human, and wrong.

I have seen some appalling things in my career, and I, since becomming a Christian, have done things of which I am not proud. But I wonder what it is about atheists that they are so keen to steriotype and condemn. It is precisely this kind of behaviour which causes social animosity and strife. It is the sort of behaviour for which they condemn Christians.

Does anybody seriously believe, in this day and age, that Christianity is either causing wars or otherwise?

George Bush declares war; George Bush is a Christian; therefore Christians cause wars. How naive can you get?? You might as well say that all people called George cause wars.

Best regards. Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

90. Comment #62036 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 1:44 am

Hello Nails, Your comments regarding the Kamikazee pilots seemed to answer itself. Brainwashing, not religion or faith. Just a bit of a con which turned otherwise normal human beings into suicide divebombers.

This Hitler / Catholic thing. You really should let it go. He did not require catholisism from the men who faught under him, or those who committed war crimes in his regime. There were none believers, people who believed in the spurious myths they tried to dig up from the past (including Hitler by the way - not so devout a catholic after all) people who thought of themselves as Christian; they even had muslims in the SS (bet you didn't know that? ;) ) So, baring in mind that nobody cried, "for the Pope!" when running into battle or carried a Papal banner, put all of these faiths and none faiths together and what have you got? A-THEISM. Q.E.D., he said smugly ;)

All the best, Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

91. Comment #62053 by newatheist on August 8, 2007 at 3:12 am

Sorry Ash, the polite guys are out at the moment ;-)
84. Comment #62010 by Ash Roskell

…I admit to being sarcastic in my first posting when speaking in general terms of the qualities of comments on this site and about Richard Dawkins too. However, I have treated each individual with whom I have spoken, if rigorously, with politeness and due credit. When addressing an individual, particularly in argument, I believe it important and right to afford ones communicants dignity and courtesy…

Okay. Sarcasm to individuals is not on. Got it. Sarcasm to groups (of which I consider myself a part in this case) is perfectly fine. Cool! All you Christians are so…

I think any intelligent obscurantist mind can make the distinction in the terms of my case here.

On a different note, I did like your plea for the capital "G" for god. Like any character in fiction, as you pointed out! Think I'll call him Mr. God. Yes, even more respectful.
85. Comment #62012 by Ash Roskell

Ockham… by employing the principal of his razor would have come to the conclusion that these events on the sun or moon were acts of God.

Yes. If "God" did not then beg the question, and require an explanation of its own.

Reading on…

Other Comments by newatheist

92. Comment #62056 by Goldy on August 8, 2007 at 3:36 am

Does anybody seriously believe, in this day and age, that Christianity is either causing wars or otherwise?

Do tribal conflicts count? Plenty happening in Indonesia.
I guess you could be ruight in thinking Christianity doesn't cause wars. However, the west is Christian by default (like the Middle East is Muslim, etc) and we are balmes for all that is happening there, whether we like it or not. Soooo, when history comes to be written, one could say.....yes.
Have you read Eden in the East, by Stephen Oppenheimer? OK, some I find a bit of an academic stretch, but there is plenty in there that is pertinent to the stories we are told in the Bible. Have a quick gander and let us know what you think.
Off to bed - by the time I get back to this site, things will be soooooo far away in advance I'll not know what i wrote and where. Have a good day, all and for the Antipodean contributers, have a great night!

Other Comments by Goldy

93. Comment #62060 by LeeC on August 8, 2007 at 4:14 am

Hi Nails,

Thanks for forum link. I will have a look very soon when I have the time.

I promised the wife I will be here only 10 mins and the clock is ticking – and look at all the posts!!!

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

94. Comment #62061 by LeeC on August 8, 2007 at 4:38 am

Hi Ash,

Glad you are back… I hoped you would not run away from a debate, but I was losing "faith".

With regards to your first point – I really did not know it mattered if I typed God or god, they both to me mean the same – however you will soon see (if not already) how bad my grammar really is, but I certainly do not mean any offence so I will try and refer to him(?) as God during our discussions (but I may make a mistake along the way – old habits and all, so please forgive me)

As I just stated to Nails, I do not have much time tonight, so here I will merely say thank you for your responses, I will read them shortly and reply as soon as I can. My posts are normally lengthy and so take me sometime to write.

I will address just a couple of points though you made in your post (85. Comment #62012)

Firstly, I do not mean to "tie you hands" to what I believe is evidence or scientific, I want to discuss evidence and science as it is understood by the majority of the scientific community. That is all.

And as for philosophy, what I said is I do not feel the need to go to deep into discussions with it. I simply do not know much about it, and normally when people discuss it they go too deep and just end up saying words to me I do not understand.

I have stated that I use the scientific method first, and where science stops, I use the philosophy of Ockham's razor (and yes thanks, I knew he was a monk – I also know it was a Roman Catholic priest who first suggested the Big Bang model – funny old world isn't it?). I know this is a philosophy and I have been very clear about that. As for Popper, well this seems to be more the philosophy of science… but what do I know?

So in answer to your question, I am happy to discuss philosophy, but only where science is unable to provide an answer.

No need for a ref decision, I do not want to "cage in" the discussion too much, but I wanted to explain my position so you understand where I am coming from.

I am happy to learn more, so I will listen with interest, but if my eye glaze over when the philosophy gets to weird for me – then forgive me if I disagree with your conclusions.

Have to go… I am way over my 10 mins.

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

95. Comment #62063 by LeeC on August 8, 2007 at 4:46 am

Hi Ash,

"I was intrigued by various comments you have made to others which seem to imply that you are witholding certain elements of your arguments, depending on the responses you elicit from me."

It is really getting late... but it seems that I am doing very well in offending you.

I am "holding back" some of my arguments, I simply want to give you a chance to respond, if I posted all my ideas it will take a very long time, and probably have very little interest to you.

I want to wait for your response so I know how I should respond.

Simple... no conspiracy.

I want to debate, and not lecture.

I really must go.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

96. Comment #62069 by