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

101. Comment #62085 by PopeStig on August 8, 2007 at 5:44 am

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 ;)

Hitler himself was born a Catholic and reinforces his Chrisian faith several times in various speeches. The Nazi party program mentioned "We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."

I also very much doubt that these are the words of someone who proudly wears an atheist t-shirt : "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

Hitler had widespread support from the church (although he met some critisim early on) as he stood against the secularism and godlessness of the Weimar republic, So calling him an atheist and nazism an atheist ideology is stretching the truth more than a little bit.

He does have a go at both Churches and priests, so I don't know if he qualifies for the moniker of a 'good catholic' either, but I can find little evidence for him not being a Christian.

I don't think we can say he's a discredit to atheists at all. Mind you, even if he was an atheist it would not be an argument against atheism, anymore than him being born a Catholic is an argument against Christianity.

Other Comments by PopeStig

102. Comment #62088 by Bonzai on August 8, 2007 at 5:49 am

I think it is stretching it to try to pin Catholicism on Hitler. He might be raised a Catholic but most Catholic aren't Hitler, so there is something unique about Hitler that his alleged Catholicism was only coincidental.

What is true though, is that without the general anti-semitic ethos fostered by Christianity Hitler's particularly virulent brand of antisemitism might not have taken hold so easily.

Martin Luther was a true Christian and a rabid antisemite. There is little dispute over that.

Other Comments by Bonzai

103. Comment #62090 by newatheist on August 8, 2007 at 5:57 am

Ash,
Come on I'm using less sarcasm. …A bit. And so are you, so how about it?

You'd hate people to think I was right about Lebanon and India, right? Or Christians and homosexuals? Or Stalin? Please set me straight. (I'll behave, promise.)

Other Comments by newatheist

104. Comment #62096 by PopeStig on August 8, 2007 at 6:36 am

Though I think you also offer a hint at its solution in your own remarks. It is safe to say, I think, that the situation in Ireland has continually evolved over the centuries but that the distinction between Catholic or Protestant has not; even though the tennets of both faiths have.

Possibly an aside, but how does the religion change? Did someone have a new vision? Did someone update the bible?

This, in a way, proves my contention. Whilst the political and religious themes have changed, the need for a convenient distinction between potential targets has not. There are those who have lived with these "troubles" (and I have met them) who would say that the violence has never been about religion, but about occupation, power, history, revenge; anything but religion.

The only way you can tell the difference between the two sides is by their faith. There would not have been a Northern Ireland if it was not for the fact that the Protestants (a majority in the area) were afraid they'd be treated poorly by the Catholics (a majority in Ireland as a whole). The irony is that the 'Troubles' flared up again at the end of the sixties because Catholics felt mistreated and discriminated against by Protestants.

It's all about revenge, occupation and power - but between religious groupings.

My theory is that it's the increased wealth and the accompanying secularism of the area that has enabled the peace treaty to come to pass, and (I hope) will ensure a lasting peace in the area. But I haven't seen any research proving or disproving this.

Not all would agree obviously, but I didn't ask if any one could find a way to prove me wrong? I asked what you really believed? Do you believe that any of the bombers or assasins on either side of that conflict had an image of Jesus or Mother Mary in their head as their motivating thought? Come on! Let's get real. Lets not waste keyboard presses. We could ware out our fingers on such non-arguments. Dawkins wants you to believe that we Christians are evil. He has his own motives, which I suspect is more than just selling books. But just think it through. It dosen't even make sense.

You're attacking statements I didn't make, and opinions I don't hold. I haven't studied rhetoric, but I believe that's called setting up a strawman. It's underhanded and cheap, so I'd rather you didn't do it, if that is okay :-)

I do not believe all or even most Christians are evil (unless setting up a strawman is evil..), but I believe religion as a whole is a kind of blinkered tribalism that underlies a lot of our modern conflicts and increases their duration and the atrocities commited during the war.

Other Comments by PopeStig

105. Comment #62108 by Oliver Leif on August 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

"I do not believe all or even most Christians are evil (unless setting up a strawman is evil..), but I believe religion as a whole is a kind of blinkered tribalism that underlies a lot of our modern conflicts and increases their duration and the atrocities commited during the war."

Booya. Generalizing a people of one faith is absurd, and Dawkins, to my knowledge has never claimed that "all Christains are evil".

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

106. Comment #62174 by Donald on August 8, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Comment #62010 by Ash Roskell:

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.

Thank you for posting this.

I deliberately, and persistently, use god, or "god" when referring to the biblical god. The issue for me is not grammar - it is a refusal to bow to the demand for respect for religious belief that religious believers make. Those demands for respect in the past were worse. In past times, anyone disputing the dogma of the xian churches could be expelled, excommunicated, or executed. There is still a law against blasphemy. These demands for respect are part of a power struggle, with religious people trying to assert dominance over everyone else. One tiny element of that dominance play and demand for respect for religious belief, is the capitalisation of the "god" that xians believe in.

I do not agree that the capitalisation of the biblical "god" is required by grammar. It is optional, because there is no person called god - any god is purely imaginary. In any case, the grammatical aspect is trivial. Dominance and respect are the important issues here.

You say "it simply reveals something about the writers". This phrase implies (by common usage and association) that what is revealed is discreditable.

The boot is on the other foot. The discreditable actions are the dominance plays of the religious, which extend from demands for political power, all the way down to capitalising "god" as a mark of respect.

Fortunately, in the UK, religites no longer have the power to punish me for lack of respect for the fairy tales and myths xians believe in.
SO, I say proudly and grammatically, god, as described in the bible, does not exist.

Other Comments by Donald

107. Comment #62195 by Nails on August 8, 2007 at 5:28 pm

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.

Unfortunately not, Ash. The Japanese effectively worshipped their emperor as a deity, so we are on a similar line here.
Kamikazee was not there ultimate objective however, I have it on good authority that may were instructed to carry out their bombing missions on US ships and return - the crash attacks were initially saved for these who were damaged and unlikely to return. As the tactic became so effective, the rules changed slightly as we all know. Another take on this is one small group who were sent to America in submarine-type vessels, with the intention of blowing themselves up. One poor guy 'malfunctioned' and his device failed to explode. He returned home and was shunned by friends and family for his dishonour....
But the suicide bombing argument is valid. Science tells us that people will follow instructions, up to a point, however nasty the outcome by people in authority. The higher the authority, the greater the risk of nasty and/or violent instructions being carried out. Although this hasn't yet been scientifically demonstrated at the 'god' level, I think you know where its going....

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

I'm sorry, I thought you brought it up:

40. Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell on July 22, 2007 at 1:05 am

But if you want to read some bad horror stories about atheistic ragimes, try Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Poll Pot and many more in all good stockists near you now.

Oh yes, that's right - you did.
But did Allied troops fight under a banner of god? no, so they must have been atheist as well. Does that mean that the crusade was the ONLY religious war ever, or will you try and wriggle out of that one as well?
You are right, i didn't know that Hitler had muslims in the SS, but given the rapid depletion of his forces I would imagine he contemplating enlisting Jews at one point..... (bad joke, sorry)

put all of these faiths and none faiths together and what have you got? A-THEISM. Q.E.D.

?????
Faith + non-faith = atheism?
I'm sure you didn't mean that. That would make the inquisistion an atheist movement if one person had an inkling of doubt about his faith while he tortured some poor person for making up an opinion of their own...

Other Comments by Nails

108. Comment #62246 by LeeC on August 9, 2007 at 4:30 am

Hi Ash,

As promised, a lengthier and detailed response from me. I had to be short (and fast) last night but I still got into trouble for being over my 10 mins from the wife.

Oh well.

I only briefly read your first couple of responses, but felt I needed to reply quickly due to the fear I may had offended you with my earlier comments - which was never my intension.

If my words are misunderstood and they offend then I am truly sorry. I do not write 2,000 words to offend someone, I could offend in one sentence (a lot more efficient), but what is the point of that in a debate?

Let's move on and not get too stuck on this.

The term "God", whether you believe in Him or not, is a proper noun;

Already answered - my offence is merely to grammar and my old English teacher (she never liked me). I do move in my debates from talking about a god or gods (in general) and God (specifically the Christian God) depending on whom I am debating with. However, I do not merely debate against God, I debate against ALL gods and I move from thread to thread so I will make mistakes.

I am apologising a lot here... not a great way to enter into a debate.

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?

I "wander" a lot about my grammar sometimes, but mistakes happen - I do it a lot I know, I am always typing the wrong word. This is why I will never dare to correct anyone on their English - I am not in a position to do so, mine is rubbish I know, I took more interest in Maths and Science at school, not English. I just hope people can understand my arguments.

Let's move - again.

I admit to being sarcastic in my first posting when speaking in general terms of the qualities of comments on this site

I do that all the time, sarcasm maybe the lowest form of humour, but if it is funny and doesn't hurt anyone - you have to laugh haven't you?

to get to the heart of the questions you raised:

Excellent - we have been dancing around the debate so far - lets get to it!

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.

No, as I said before. You asked me what I meant by evidence - you asked, I answered - I am not trying to tie your hands. You could look up the definition of scientific evidence if you like, or "evidence" in particular. I would be interested to learn how wrong I am about what is considered evidence by the wider audience.

Anyway - I am sure you could debate me with one arm tied behind you back, you have said you have God on your side right?

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,

If you told me the Lord God would, could and he did - I would be very, very impressed.

surely your response would simply be to say that there was a scientific explanation for this phenomenon & explain it in these terms?

You have put your own words into my mouth - this would not be my precise words.

Firstly, the sun does move from it's position in space, I think at a couple of hundred kms per second around the Galactic Centre, so just movement alone would not be good enough. However this is not, I think, what you are suggesting.

If God could move the sun to twice the distance from the Earth, and in doing so the Earth is "unaffected" (i.e. the temperature does not suddenly drop but is maintained by God's powers) then this would be amazing, and I could not answer the two observations (the sun suddenly moving 150 million kms and the Earth unchanged)

As for the moon, again I stated this would be precisely the type of evidence I would be looking for proof of a god (this is the correct use of the word "god" I hope - I did not specify which god).

With such observations, I would believe that a god intervened. The problem though is not convincing me this was an act of god, but to convince all the religious people which god it was that performed the act? The Jews, Muslins and Christians will all claim it was their God(?) and that this is proof that His message in their holy book is correct.

This however is not my problem - with such evidence, if it could not be explained by known physics (which it couldn't as we described and we have a good understand the motion of the stars, planets etc) then it would be proof of god for me.

I will no longer be an atheist - I will be converted to believe in this god.

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?

No they are not... (and how could I do that do God?)

Actually - this may be a rather deep observation, I will pause.

Are you saying that your Lord God is constrained by His own physical laws that He created?

Your argument is that God created Life, the universe and everything - All the physical laws so surely he could bend them a little?

So God should be able to move the moon out of it's orbit, and place it on the other side of the Earth in just one second. Or maybe start spinning the moon so it is not longer tidally locked and so we can see the whole moon as it rotates? None of these should be a problem for God. My method of observation and measurement will not be affected by the action. i.e. I will lookup, the photons from the moon will be coming from location B and not A (it has been moved to the other side of the Earth remember) The photons will not be changing the outcome of the experiment - so I do not understand your argument. Of course, God may have chosen an "easier" method, and just gave the illusion that the moon had move (it would still be a nice trick for the whole 6 billion people on planet Earth to observe so I would still be impressed) so I do not see why you can belittle such an observation.

But back to your statement "by your arguments as he is the creator of all that you would use to observe, define & subsequently explain the event; namely science?" Yes I would use science to try and explain it, and science would fail, so God has proved himself unto me and the world.

I am really confused about your argument - am I missing your point?

Ash, you asked me what I meant by evidence, and what evidence I would require for the proof of the existence a god - and I stated it.

You then state, "If God did as you asked (see above), you would say it was not God who did it, but science"?

I'm sorry here, but if I didn't know better I would think you are calling me a liar?

You have not made a case against my argument, you just said that if god did as I asked for proof of His existence, I would not believe it - and this is after I said it is precisely what I am looking for. So your argument against me is to merely called me a lair and not given an argument to where I am wrong, just attacked my creditability?

Don't worry, I do not take it personally - just disappointed that this is the best rely you can respond with to my lack of evidence argument.

Very poor, Very poor.

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".

Look back at what I said originally, and my last posting in response to this point also.

I merely say, "I do not do philosophy". It has it place next to painting and music – it may sound and look pretty but most of it just does not work for me. This is my personal opinion.

I have said enough already - I will wait for your response. (This is not holding back information I may add - another point we will address later - merely that this is enough information to say at this stage in a debate. I have further opinions on the topic, but they may not be relevant and so, as I have said, I will wait for your response.)

So are we allowed to talk about philosophy

Of course... we can, I will even talk about football as well if you like? I think Liverpool will put up a stronger challenge this year, but will not win the title. Chelsea seem to have problems with injuries, and so I believe Manchester United will win the title again this year. Oh, and Leeds United will get relegated another division - Bye Bye.

By you talking about philosophy, does mean I will have much to add, this means that the debate might not last long - you could try though.

I like to learn.

I want a word with the ref' cos you're not playin' fair

Yellow card... that's a Yellow card. Complaining to the ref - just play the game.

He He He

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?

Challenge away - my argument had nothing to do with his age - more on the age in which he lived (This is a historic statement, his birth and death are recorded so you will not challenge this wil you?).

You have stated he was an atheist, so you must have evidence that this was the case?

If so I will retract my early statement - if not, you cannot "assume" this was the case and you will have to retract your statement with regards to his faith.

If anything, if we are to "assume" anybody's faith at that time, it is more likely to me that the most people were religious and not atheists (as is still true today I am told?).

However, we will leave Simon's faith as neutral unless proven otherwise - I could of course try and find evidence he went to church or had a association with a church, until you have evidence proving otherwise then please do not assert he was an atheist, and I will not claim he was religious.

Since if we have no evidence either way, then I could ask, at the time of Simon's life, what was the percentage of religious, agnostic and atheist. It would not mean anything about Simon per say, but it would highlight the time in which he lived and was educate and speculate his likely religious opinion.

I think your challenge is weak, and it missing the point. One persons view does not mean the bible is any more correct than say, the Koran.

I was suggesting that you look at his ACTUAL WORK in this regard.

And I said tried to find links on the internet, but found none.

I requested you provide me links to summaries of his "ACTUAL WORK" so I could read and learn more about your argument. Until you can provide them, please stop attacking me for not reading something I actually requested for.

At the moment, your line of argument seems rest on attacking me as a person, I guess you had a bad day at work or something... no worries - I merely ask you start to work on attacking my arguments and not me, the person.

After all, legal testing is one of the most "scientific"

Since you placed the word in quotes, you have answered this point yourself.

I think the most "scientific" testing is that done in say, science? I am sure we will agree to this obvious statement, but you say it is "one of the most", so could you tell me any legal court case that actually asked for the crime to be repeated so they could confirm how it was done?

Science repeats it measurements... legal testing does not. I do not see the comparison you make between the two.

The legal system may use science as evidence, but you cannot use this fact to conclude the legal system is therefore 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.

I was not attacking the person, I know nothing about him - I merely stated that showing me a person who converted to Christianity as you claim, does not prove Christianity itself - surely even the worse legal system could understand this logic?

Anyway, the point here is show me the evidence, show me links to his work and I will read it for my education.

You have ignored, so far, my original point against this type of argument. I gave the example of Alien landings, which seems to me like a rather good example in the modern day to the type of argument you are making for the miracles of Jesus based on only the bible.

So you gave me Simon Greenleaf as your evidence for the bible, I give you John E Mack, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, Psychiatrist and Professor at Harvard Medical School. He believed that aliens have landed on Earth and have adducted many of his patients.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Do you now believe in Alien landings and adductions – I mean, I have now given you a leading scholar also from Harvard? Surely this makes it all true?

Or do you still question the evidence I put before you? You should, as I have of yours.

Are you able to question the quality of one source of evidence, but not the other?

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?

I have already addressed this. I believe we are having a debate, and not a lecture. I cannot type everything I know onto this thread, it would take to long, not make sense, and probably much of it has nothing to do with the debate (i.e. like my side comment earlier with regards to football earlier)

Do I feel "entirely confident" in my stance? I do not think this statement applies to me in this context and so does not make sense. I am not arrogant enough to say I am right and I know everything, but no one has yet proved me wrong, highlighted the errors in my logic or provided evidence for a god that "did it". Could someone or something prove me wrong - of course, this is way I am here debating, to check that I am on the right path. So I am not "confident" I am right, but no one has shown me wrong by showing me evidence for a god.

It also does not matter to me if I am shown to be wrong - it happens a lot, this is how we learn and improve. If I am wrong, I am wrong, I will change my mind and worldview - easy. This is not so easy to say for a devoutly religious person though is it?

So is it a "tactical exercise"? - well this is a debate we are having isn't it, so any debater has a tactic don't they? This is nothing deep or evil, it is just a debate so the only "tactical exercise" I am having is really with myself to question my beliefs and check that I am right (or not) - if I am wrong, then I will reject my original ideas, but then I have to question any new solution to check that also, if the new solution seems correct, then I will change opinions to the new.

I am not out to "trick you", just interested in your argument - I do not want to "put answers into your mouth" and hence I pause, and state I will wait for your response.

Otherwise, I am just debating with myself, and what will I learn from that?

Go on, spill the beans

I leave the mess making to my son, he is very good at spilling beans, rice, custard - anything really.

If you want to learn my views, just keep debating with me, I will not "hold anything back" if you ask me a question - but I do not want to answer my own questions.

Your comments about the Christian stories not turning up in any books other than the Bible was amusing to me

Now we get interesting, the debate now really continues...

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.

The Christian stories only seem to appear in the bible. It may be a collection of books (I did know that - this is one of it's problems - too many cooks spoil the broth and all that but lets not get off the debate) however I would expect to see accounts not written just by the followers... since not everyone followed Jesus at the time, we should have more eye witness accounts.

You mention that the books were compiled together (I knew this also) but how did the men choose which books were in, and which were not? Men will choose the books that are in line with their own views and reject the others. However, this is not my problem, it is the problem for those who follow the bible, which of course I do not. Lets not open the debate down this path until we resolve the evidence issue that the bible, in its current form, gives to us.

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.

As I have just stated, the point of my argument is not how the books came together to the form we have today, but it is what is in the bible that I am debating, the sole source of evidence you are using for Jesus. I am looking for work outside of the bible to back up your claims you made and are written within the bible.

If you want to debate with me later about "conspiracy" theories, then I will - but you are using the bible as the source of your evidence. I will accept it in its current form for our debate.

So, you are merely avoiding the question, and diverting the debate as where.

Lets stay on track... what is the evidence for Jesus and his miracles outside of the bible? What other Non-Christian sources do we have?

You like the legal argument don't you?

If two people are found in a room by police standing over a dead body and person A said person B killed person C. Would you believe person A merely on this statement alone? One eye witness?

No of course not. And so, I cannot accept one source of eye witness accounts you give from the bible on its own. In the same way I would not believe person A on his statement alone.

I gave you an example remember similar to yours with regards to Alien landings and their eye witness accounts.

Do you believe in Alien landings as well as God?

Why?

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?

Ash, this whole post is not answering my question. I do not have such opinions, and you are just changing the debate, I am happy to debate down those lines once you have responded to my original reply – the one you ask to me first.

Please respond to my Alien landing argument before trying to change the debate - is my argument so weak you can just dismiss it out of hand, if so, could you explain why - and I will try harder next time.

you comment specifically that we do not get accounts of scriptural events in Latin or Greek

Did I? I think you are making a "straw man" of me from somewhere.

At what point did I discuss the language (Latin, Greek or Welsh?) as the basis of my argument?

I could provide you with two books, both written in English that have very different opinions (Dawkins/Behe perhaps?) the language used is not important, but what is written with that language. So you are way off target with your response.

I am happy that Latin and Greek writings entered into the bible – but so what? - I am asking for writings by other Greeks or Romans who are not Christians who observed some of these great acts of Jesus.

To try and highlight my point further in case I was just misunderstood. At a different time and place of course, we have writings of Roman soldiers based at Hadrian's wall (the "Vindolanda" letters) - in them they discuss their dirty washing, the weather, the poor food - PEOPLE that they have met, seen or will see – their daily lives.

None of these letters are "interesting" enough to put into a book on their own so I would not expect them in the bible - but I would expect such writings to exist discussing Jesus if he really did what he did.

So this is the evidence that I am looking for... not "missing" books from the bible that would have been written by believers, even if they did not have the Christian view and so were rejected.

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.

Is that really true? I have better re-read the letters

"Please send me 20 chickens, 100 apples (if you can find nice ones), 100 or 200 eggs (if they are for sale at a fair price.)"

Of course, these were "Scottish" chickens that of course that profoundly impacted their Roman politics at the time at the Wall, and since they were at "war" with the chickens this is why they were mentioned in these "Top Secret" dispatches to their generals...

I need to read further, when you put it like that, it is very interesting...

Of course, these letters are dated around 90 and 125AD so maybe at the time of Jesus they did not write such things. 100 years is a long time after all for the Roman Empire?

Source: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/arl_vindolanda_tablets.htm

You have narrowed your search for truth down to two or three fields of enquiry: physics, law & history, but primarily physics.

Physics first, the "razor" second. I stated this very early on.

I have an interest in history as I stated, but this does not enter into my belief system.

So is their any other way to describe the universe that is backed up with as much evidence?

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?

You will have to ask the wife.

At the moment Physics cannot fully resolve biology, biology cannot fully answer the brain. Although I suspect the most complete answers will be found using science, there will still be much that cannot be explained. I doubt though I will find any answers asking my "invisible best friend"?

why is it so ludicrous to look into ones own heart and see what dwells therein.

Because the heart is a muscle evolved to pump blood around the body - we have learnt this from biology. I do not ask my bicycle pump if I should fall in love with someone.

However, I doubt you are really talking about the physical heart.

I will just answer these, and many other questions with - "I just do not know". Me not knowing an answer to a question does not prove God, it does not provide evidence for God in itself. Unless you want the "god of the gaps"?

So, for the record, I will now freely admit to a few things I cannot answer.

consciousness .
The first "instance" of life in the universe.
What came BEFORE the Big Bang.
Next week's football results.

Is the fact I do not know next weeks football results proof the existence of God?

I must say, it does sound we are moving still further away from answering my original point which I have repeated throughout this response of mine?

Tell you what; I will discuss your questions further, when you are kind enough to tackle mine. Seems fair?

Christ brought in a new order, fulfilling the prophesies of the Old Testament, and demanding that we treat all people with love

Now we are back on track... any evidence for any of these statement?

"Christ brought in a new order"? - So we had chaos before and order afterwards.... you should be able to give evidence for this of course?
"fulfilling the prophesies of the Old Testament"? - I've been in very long debate on this subject of prophesies on another thread on this site and do not want to enter again into it here (why repeat myself) - if you are interested in continuing this line of debate you will be more than welcome on our other thread I am sure - our resident theist is away at the moment and so you could give him a Christian helping hand.
"Demanding"? - That's a nice one, such a loving Jesus - "demanding" we treat all people with love.

Let's move on...

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.

Murder is wrong, and I would condemn someone for doing so? Why do you think I should not condemn others for committing murder?

I think I have missed your point?

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

Christianity has improved a lot over the centuries, I will give you that. Islam seems to be pretty bad even in "this day and age".

I will merely quote again (now I have the original source)
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil-that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg
Professor of Physics, University of Texas at Austin
Winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Other Comments by LeeC

109. Comment #62247 by Quetzalcoatl on August 9, 2007 at 4:49 am

I do not ask my bicycle pump if I should fall in love with someone.

My bicycle pump is very cynical. I ask it many questions, and all it ever says is "Pfft".

Sorry.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

110. Comment #62252 by Flagellant on August 9, 2007 at 5:51 am

I'm with Donald (106) on whether the word should be 'God' or 'god'. Elegantly put, if I may say so, sir; I thank you for saving me an inelegant rant.

The cheek of people wanting respect for their god(s) is irritating. It automatically presumes that we know exactly which god the believers have in mind, without a careful definition. This is not a trivial matter, Ash: tell us, first of all, which of the many gods going are you talking about before you start arguing with us.



Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

111. Comment #62383 by LeeC on August 9, 2007 at 2:08 pm

My bicycle pump is very cynical. I ask it many questions, and all it ever says is "Pfft".

All praise Quetzalcoatl,

Maybe you should buy a new pump?

But your response shows me why a pump is not the best machine to ask questions when it comes to love… they are just full of air with nothing much to say.

Must go.

Lee


Hi Flagellant,

When it comes to God or god, being an atheist I do not care. If I want to debate with someone and it is important to them I will try and follow their rules for the debate. It is not difficult. It does not mean I believe in God or a god.

It is only an extra press of the SHIFT key and costs no extra money.

Maybe I'm wrong, but what the hell. If you do not want to debate, and merely wish to offend, why stop at the letter G?

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

112. Comment #62402 by Nails on August 9, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Yes LeeC, evidence.
We require evidence.
Simple really.
Like evidence of the star of bethlehem.
Funny how the chinese, who 2000 years ago were recording everything that moved in the heavens, failed to spot this mighty cellestial arrow pointing towards bethlehem..
could it be that this story was added later in order to fulfil a prophesy that was in danger of being unfulfilled?
You must admit that, as biblical stories were written so long after the event, possibly being handed down by word of mouth a few times (or few hundred) that some things have been exagerted a little?
And how come a god who can write in the complex language of DNA needs humans to write it down for him?
Why not write it himself and hand it over. Simple that way, no debate.
Or even just ask noah et al to write it down there and then.
To put this into context, look at the divisions in the muslims between sunni and shia.
A lot of their bloody argument is based on who and when the book was written by, as their prophet apparantly didn't think it important at the time.

Other Comments by Nails

113. Comment #62415 by Goldy on August 9, 2007 at 4:39 pm

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? ;) )

Think all sides did. Bet you never knew some of Berlin's most ferocious defenders in 1945 were French :-) Anyway, it's a pointless argument. Only reason Hitler's catholicism is brought up is because he's called an athiest by "God fearing" people. Accept the correction and we'll all stop :-)
God, god - what does it matter? You do the same - Christians in teh quotation above, followed by muslims. What's the beef?
Most of what you've written has been answered so I'll stop now.


Other Comments by Goldy

114. Comment #62523 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 3:12 am

To All;
Well, the "God / god" thing really seems to have exited some people. Just to be clear on this: I don't personally care what style of grammar people choose to use. It does not bother me in the slightest. So you presume too much if think that I wish to dictate the way you write the name. However, it is clear from the comments bouncing around the ether that some people have, what I can only describe as, chips on their shoulders about the whole thing. How you could derive from my comments that I want to dictate your terms of referrence, or that there is some sort of Christian domination thing going on, is beyond me? I pointed out my feelings on the subject and asked the question. I neither asked anyone to change their behaviour nor said that it offended me. There is a lot of unwarrented agression around on this site.

Are all atheists this touchy? Anybody interested in a debate between equals or will the majority of you be looking down your noses at me because I do not agree with your beliefs?

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

115. Comment #62530 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 3:41 am

To those who took an interest in the catholisism / Hitler thing, Nails, Bonzai & the rest.

Firstly Nails, you know quite well that it was YOU who accused Christian history of being a catalogue of "horror stories" & the quote you dug up & fired back at me was a direct response to yours. I have reminded you of this before. Can't you move on? It's all there in black & white for all to see. I seriously doubt if this line is adding anything new to the debate or interesting anybody other than you?

Yes, everybody, the allies of WW II were also A-theist, by the same definition as the one I gave. Where did I claim otherwise? But no, more unpleasant assumptions have been made about my position; & why? Because I disagree on faith. I'm glad I'm not in a tribunal with half of you. I'd be burned at the stake before I got to finish a sentence!

And, for the benefit of the Catholic Hitler experts; I suppose when he spent a fortune in time, resources and top men on digging into pagan myths, in an attempt to prove them true (so as to establish a lineage, religion & ancient arian history) for propaganda purposes, he was a practicing catholic at the same time? Sinning is one thing, but attempting to dismantle the basis of your own religion and replace it with another is surely not the most "faithful" act. And what have we established here? Not much. This is an asside really.

Nails, hello, with regard to your Kamikazee argument. The tactic was not nearly so effective as you suggest, I doubt if other people are buying into it. So there was an Emporer, revered as a god, so what? Most of those kids did those suicide attacks because they were threatened with ignomony & execution any way (look closer into the history). And "science tells us . . ." is not an argument. It is a spurious statement at best. What does it mean? It's the sort of thing people say on telly when they're tring to sell you soap powder.

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

116. Comment #62532 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 3:46 am

An apology to those who were offended.
Though I did not say that Dawkins has ever said that he thinks all Christians are evil, I suspect it is what he believes. I have better grounds for thinking this than you may think. However, it was a gross over-generalisation which I acknowledge that I cannot substantiate.
Sorry. Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

117. Comment #62533 by Goldy on August 10, 2007 at 3:56 am

Sorry for the tardiness in my response, Ash, old boy.

There are plenty of Jews, Muslims, etc. who would not agree that the West is "by default" Christian

I dare say there are more Jews, Muslims, etc that might argue that. As it is, I can't recall passing too many mosques in the English countryside or too many synagogues in the French villages. Austria appears to be singularly lacking in Jain temples around the Tirolean Alps and Shia shrines are hard to find in the German countryside. Hmmmm, what can one make of that, I wonder. Did like your final logic, mind - probably why the Bible makes sense to you ;-)

Thanks for playing, NEXT! :-) A

You are the weakest link - goodbye! :-D (and no, I'm not ginger!)

Oh, and if god doesn't need a capital g, why mention it? If it doesn't bother you in the slightest, why ask us to change? If it does, then accept our reasons for telling you why we don't capitalise the deity. If it doesn't, don't mention it. Duh!

Other Comments by Goldy

118. Comment #62539 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 4:03 am

Hi Nails,

Yes LeeC, evidence.
We require evidence.
Simple really.
Like evidence of the star of bethlehem.
Funny how the chinese, who 2000 years ago were recording everything that moved in the heavens, failed to spot this mighty cellestial arrow pointing towards bethlehem..

It is really that simple - evidence.

It is all we atheists ask for, a little evidence - our "faith" is not as strong as the theist's, and so we do not believe just because we are told to believe.

We question...

If doubt is good enough for Thomas, who supposedly knew Jesus and only believed JC came back from the dead when he actually met Jesus "again", in the flesh, and touched his wounds. Why then are we criticised when 2,000 years later we need a little more evidence than a book written by the faithful?

As for the "star of Bethlehem", it is one of many mysteries of the bible, however it is probably not the worst. The problem we have in the modern day is knowing what the hell was being discussed in the bible, and since we have no firm dates, we can only speculate.

Interestingly though, there are a few possibilities to what the "star of Bethlehem" could have been (hope you do not mind the lecture - I like astronomy and it is not often I can quote it in religious discussions, so I do it whenever I can).

The Chinese I think did notice a nova around the time of Jesus' "birth", but didn't think much of it, it was not that "great" and it was at the wrong time (a few years after the ascribed "birth" of Jesus. (A nova or "new star" is actually matter falling in on a white dwarf and then having nuclear fusion kicking for a brief moment - these are not as bright as supernovae and leave no "trace", unlike a supernova)

Halley 's Comet did also make an appearance at around the time of the "birth" - but comets were considered a bad sign, death, flood etc were supposed to follow the sign of a comet - so not a comet. Besides, people knew that a comet was different and probably would have called it a "hairy" star or something to differentiate.

The "smart" money is on the conjunction of the planets - using computer programs the path of the planets can be calculated quite easily now for any location and point in time, so this is what people have done.

I cannot remember the precise dates, but I think Venus and Jupiter (the brightest of "wandering" stars) did do a merry dance at around the "birth" of Christ.

So maybe the "wise men" noticed these? I doubt it though, what proof do we have of any "wise men" oh yeah, the bible of course, so this story in the bible has a few problems for me.

Firstly, if it was the "wandering" planets - big deal, this event is rare, but not impossible (I think this type of event happens every 500 to 1000 years or something) so with this reckoning we are missing a few messiahs since one or two conjunctions have happened since?

However, lets face it, any sign would have done for the writers of the bible, if not this, then something else... the conjunction of planets does not mean the birth of a Messiah since we are obviously short of a few in written history.

Also, the stories are written after the event. Not just after Jesus' birth, but way after his "death on the cross". So it is more likely any such events were used to "fit" the Jesus myth, and the memory of such events used to make Jesus seem more important than he really was. A lot of people would have been born around the time of this astronomical event, and since, according to the bible, King Herod killed all babies under the age of 2, then the astronomical event and Jesus' birth were not close events. And let's not forget, the event could have been used for ANYBODY in their 30's.

Now of course, God could have "created" a new wandering star "just for the birth" - science could not answer that one - but then again, it doesn't have to, since we have no written record of such an event apart from the bible. The Chinese certainly would have noticed a "wandering star" just "coming and going" -(I guess Nails it is probably to this you made your reference to the Chinese).

To me though, a lot about the story of Jesus' birth seems a little "made up"; the writers had to invent a story why Jesus was born in Bethlehem for a start - why? To fulfil some old bible prophecy. Besides, I thought the Jesus of the bible is known as Jesus of Nazareth and not Bethlehem? And let's not forget the Virgin birth... just don't get me started. Mary would have been stoned to death if she was lucky, if she was pregnant outside of marriage - no it's OK - Joseph has a dream, that's right. And why is the star of Bethlehem only in the Book of Matthew and not Luke if it is that important? Luke does give a detailed account of the birth - minus "wisemen" and miracle stars. I could go on, the list of issues is great.

However, my point against Ash is that I am still interested to know more why no Romans or Greeks outside of the bible wrote of the "great deeds" Jesus is supposed to have performed. It all sounds a little strange to me.

Then there's all that business of "All the dead rising up out of the graves" and "earthquakes"

And just in guess someone is thinking I am mad, because I didn't "believe it" until I read it, but this is what the bible has to say happen after the crucifixion:-
" At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top
to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open
and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went
into the holy city and appeared to many people.
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the
earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and
exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" " Matthew 27: 51-54

You would have thought this would get written down by a Roman soldier writing to his mum or something – wouldn't you?

"Dear mum,
Please send me some new sandals the old ones have got a hole, and oh yeah, all the city dead rose up today because some Jewish bloke came back from the dead.
The earthquakes are getting better though, so don't you worry.
Lots of love, your son Bigusdickus"

The more I learn about the bible, the more problems it creates itself. The more questions it has to answer. It fails to provide any evidence for its claims.

It makes a lot of statements, but I am expected to believe on faith, and not with reasoning.

Sorry, 600 years ago maybe - but not today, we have better answers.

You must admit that, as biblical stories were written so long after the event, possibly being handed down by word of mouth a few times (or few hundred) that some things have been exagerted a little?

My granddad could remember precisely every detail of his days in World War II you know. Over 50 years after the event. He never got confused, or mixed up details he saw in films, documentaries or added anything just to "spice it up a bit". It was a true historical record of the events. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong!

And have you any evidence whatsoever of humans EVER exaggerating a story, adding bits to make the story more interesting? Newspapers and News channels never do this at all.

How about humans who lie to try and convince you their ideas are better than someone else's - politicians have never, ever done to this for their own personal gain.

Have you any evidence of a human writing a story with bias? Whenever I read a football report of a game, the opinions, details of the action and observations are ALWAYS the same - even in the local newspapers from the different town teams involved in the game. Not only do they agree who was playing, the players, the location, when goals were score, they even agree on the referrees' decisions. Every one of them.

Erm, I think I am mistaken on everything I just said.

Your point has been proven to me.

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

119. Comment #62540 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 4:04 am

PopeStig, hello, I agree, almost entirely with your points on Northern Ireland, with one key exception.

Let me be clear, If I resorted to rhetoric, I would be more skillful than that, I assure you. I am honestly blurting out what I believe.

You feel I was trying to put words into your mouth? It is you who is saying that the troubles in Northern Ireland are about religion primarily. If this is so, people have been executed, bombed, assasinated, etc. for primarily religious reasons. It then follows that the perpetrators of these crimes did so in the belief that they were pleasing their God. You can't have it both ways. There is no straw man but that which you stand up in front of me. How else are we to suppose that they went about their business?
I was merely pointing out how absurd the whole concept becomes when you think it through. I never suggested that you said it, I'm saying it. It dosen't stand up to scrutiny. Religion is too convenient a scapegoat. It has been the dressing, even the armour, but not the body of the issue. It is perhaps for this reason that all attempts to seek religious solutions have proved fruitless. Secular problems required secular sollutions. We agree on this point, and I pray that the peace lasts.

Regards. Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

120. Comment #62541 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 4:08 am

Hi Ash,

"Anybody interested in a debate between equals"

Yes, of course - I have always maintained this.

Some atheists do have a chip on their shoulders, but that is their problem - some theists have a chip on their shoulder too. People are people.

But I have to go now... I have written enough.

Look forward to your reply

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

121. Comment #62545 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 4:31 am

Hello LeeC, Do you write professionally? Always a good read but my answer to all of your points will be dissapointingly simple (though I promise to do a proper job when I've had time to think). I was brought up as an atheist & was in my early 30s when I came to Christ. I had some Christian friends & loved debating the questions with them. One day, after I had been holding forth in the pub about how almost all Biblical phenomena could be explained by science, in much the same way you have in your last postings (only I wasn't as funny or slick as you), another atheist -playing Devil's ad'- said to me, "How do you know that the very natural, scientific phenomena you describe was not created by God for these purposes?"

I didn't take the question very seriously at first (booze will do that to you) but, to get to the point, I read a book called Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees. I realised how utterly profound the intricate ballance of the universe is. If a hygrogen atom at the opposite end of the universe was 1 iota bigger or smaller, no Earth, no humanity. The fine ballance of the moon in relation to Earth's delicate orbit, etc. Rees even finds himself, though having written a secular book, forced to deal with the obvious religious implications in the ballance of creation.

It was then that I took my first "leap of faith" & prayed. I cannot prove God to any one. Asking someone to do so is fruitless. You will find Him inside your heart or not at all. And the knowledge of what you find there, if you find God, will be constantly under attack, which is why faith is required to defend it.

I will give a better & more direct and considered answer to your questions Lee, but please consider what I have said here seriously. I am not out to convert anyone on this site, but I am interested in the debate about why it is ok to treat Christians like dirt in some places, & what do atheists really believe?

All the Best, Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

122. Comment #62550 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 4:57 am

Very amusing, Goldy, :-) The reason I mention it is because I still think it is wierd. To whom exactly are you rebels demonstrating your right-on free grammar? If you don't like the prime minister of Britain, does this mean that you with start writing "gordon brown"? You are missing the point Goldy, or do you really claim to be SO OPRESSED by Christians that you feel the need to join a grammatical campaign? You are surely not trying to demonstrate your indifference to God are you?
If you know anything about the scriptures you will know that He doesn't care! Nor do Christians. I was told, on first joining this site, that I should stick to accepted grammatical rules in order to be understood more easily; well the door doesn't swing both ways then does it.
If you really think it's worth sacrificing grammatical rules on the alter of some atheistic rebellion against 1 person on an otherwise entirely atheistic website, then fill yer boots. I still think that my "niggle" says more about atheistic insecurity than anything else, & I seem to be proved right by the "pack" mentality manifesting itself.
Theat not withstanding, you are a funny guy. You've asked the audience, and the answer has been pretty resounding. Perhaps you should phone a friend? ;-)

Keep 'em commin', Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

123. Comment #62554 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 5:05 am

Quick note to LeeC: I will get back to with a full response, promise. But please stop worrying about offending me!
It saddens me when some people try to be offensive, perhaps because my remarks get too close to the bone, but I too have no intention of causing offence; so now I simply skip the postings from people whom I know to be (or have been) deliberately offensive, which makes things a bit quicker for me anyway.

You strike me as very interesting & polite. I promise to let you know if I am offended, but I am pretty thick skinned, so relax, you silly git! ;-)

Regards Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

124. Comment #62555 by PopeStig on August 10, 2007 at 5:16 am

what do atheists really believe?

That there is no god. Think that's probably the only thing all atheists have in common and will not disagree on.

Other Comments by PopeStig

125. Comment #62556 by PopeStig on August 10, 2007 at 5:28 am

Hi Ash,

Regards the 'trouble'. I believe there's a significant difference between 'caused by' and 'being done in the name of'.

I don't think the shootings and bombings were religious acts or believed to be so - like suicide bombers for instance. If all of the people in Ireland shared the same faith, what do you think would have been the outcome of the Irish Independence War? Would there have been a civil war and would the troubles have been there?

Do you feel that religion had nothing to do with the conflict at all?

Other Comments by PopeStig

126. Comment #62557 by PopeStig on August 10, 2007 at 5:44 am

Hi Ash

why it is ok to treat Christians like dirt in some places

It isn't. And that applies if you replace Christians with Atheists. Or a race. Or hairstyle. Or political opinion.

I believe it happens when you don't treat people as individuals but start generalising and grouping. I know I have done it in the past (hopefully not on this board) and I've seen you do it in a previous post.

I hope it is something that us humans will get to grips with over the next decades so we'll put tribalism behind us, just like you did when you saw your mistake and apologised for your generalisation - something which I thought deserved a lot of respect.

Have a good weekend,
PopeStig

Other Comments by PopeStig

127. Comment #62562 by newatheist on August 10, 2007 at 6:02 am

Ash,
You have a persecution complex on behalf of Christians. I wasn't berating you as a Christian, but because you were a sarcastic hypocrite. You tried to dish it out in your first post and you didn't like your come-uppance. If you can point out how it was your Christianity I was attacking, let me know (If you're not skipping this post all together).
123. Comment #62554 by Ash Roskell

I simply skip the postings from people whom I know to be (or have been) deliberately offensive

I am pretty thick skinned

Hmmm.
As it turns out I am being embarrassed by the polite folks on this thread, and I have to concede I've been a shit. But I can handle it, I'm pretty thick skinned.
Ah well, maybe I can make a few points for posterity.

Other Comments by newatheist

128. Comment #62566 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 6:20 am

Hi Newatheist

As it turns out I am being embarrassed by the polite folks on this thread, and I have to concede I've been a shit.

Don't worry - a good Christian will turn the other cheek.

And I will forgive you also… if you need forgiveness from an atheist. Doubt it.

Fight the good fight!

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

129. Comment #62567 by newatheist on August 10, 2007 at 6:24 am

Thanks Lee –

Here's one for posterity then.

121. Comment #62545 by Ash Roskell

I read a book called Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees. I realised how utterly profound the intricate ballance of the universe is

This book primed Ash's subconscious, and…

It was then that I took my first "leap of faith" & prayed.

Whammo! Ash experienced God, just like millions of other people. First hand experience. Unexplainable by any other means. And we can't say it isn't because we didn't have the experience.
My wife (yes it's true I swear) does this all the time. Specifically she told me about her contemplation of the Trinity. After thinking and praying for a couple of weeks, she was walking down the street and she heard a voice. It was stern and unfamiliar, and it said "we are one."

The voice of God? Or a product of her subconscious? It's a shame Ash isn't talking to me, otherwise he might answer my questions as follows –

Is it likely that the creator of the universe waited two weeks to telepathically tell my wife this profound answer about the mystery of the Trinity?

Or, is it MORE likely that her continued ruminations resulted in a psychological experience akin to dreams or hypnosis?


Anyway, off to bed...

Other Comments by newatheist

130. Comment #62571 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 6:43 am

Hi PopeStig,

what do atheists really believe?

That there is no god. Think that's probably the only thing all atheists have in common and will not disagree on.

I disagree… (so we cannot even agree on that? Sorry)

I believe a god is very, very unlikely and without evidence I will not believe in a god.

However I do not want to call myself an agnostic since this may seem I am just 50/50.

God is of course able to make the universe look how every he or she wants, if God does not want to give any evidence for his existence, he could do that. God could make the universe fully understandable and within the grasp of humans to place into mathematical equations on how the universe works… God could do anything if you believe that stuff, even hide his very existence from our view.

But then, what would be the point of god? I may as well believe in the fairies at the bottom of my garden. I have no evidence for them either.

So, for me – with no evidence means I believe in no god. I cannot state however there is no god, since this is impossible to prove.

Does this make me a strong agnostic or a weak atheist? These are merely words for me.

I think am with Richard D on this though. In science (especial quantum mechanics) we can never be 100% certain on anything. We only know what is probably and what is unlikely. I think I am 99.99% certain there is no god. Of course, God could prove me wrong at anytime.

May God strike me down if I am wrong….

What was that… Phew, just a thunderbolt – happens all the time on a clear, cloudless night?

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

131. Comment #62576 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 7:08 am

Hello again Newatheist,

I believe people believe what they want to believe. It is funny really.

On similar lines, I have a mother-in-law who believes the dead have spoken to her. (OK not very Christian, but along the same lines). No matter how many times I ask her to really think about the experience, and actually think about it she still believes in the experience and other clairvoyants' nonsense… so I am polite, and try and understand her. Thankfully the wife is on my wavelength – just.

Things happen, and people try and explain what happened. This is natural.

Unfortunately, sometimes something happens and a person cannot explain it – so some say, "god did it", some say, "It is the mind playing tricks again", a few can actually explain it with science.

Religion/faith plays on ignorance… at least this is my only explanation.

So people, like myself, can live life knowing that we do not know all. I do not know all the reasons, I do not know all the answers, and may never know.

Some people do not like the unknown, have a "fear of the dark", and so need an answer where none is known… enter God, the all knowing, all-powerful Lord… who has an afterlife guarantee. Heaven for eternity…

It is an easy answer… all too easy, and I understand why people follow the path.

I should be off to bed… but wine tastes so good.

Just one more.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

132. Comment #62577 by LeeC on August 10, 2007 at 7:14 am

Hi Ash,

It late again here, but hey – it is Friday night, no school tomorrow!!!

In reverse order… since your first post is more serious I will tackle it later…

Quick note to LeeC: I will get back to with a full response, promise. But please stop worrying about offending me!

Phew… I don't have to be on my best behaviour any more…

Thank F..k for that.

Oops… it was the wine that made me say it.

Glad we are now on the same wavelength.

I do worry about my sense of humour though – sarcasm is my main source of humour, and sometimes people take life too seriously.

It saddens me when some people try to be offensive

It frustrates me too when they do.

People may come to this site curious how an atheist may think… and what they could take away with them is that "many" are just abusive idiots, and act no better than children. I've been around this site and the forums for some time now and this is unfortunately what I see. Thankfully they are really in the minority. (I suspect many are mere children though, but this is just me getting old I guess. You know, I'm am sure I saw a policeman the other day who was not old enough to shave!!!)

It saddens me when some people try to be offensive, perhaps because my remarks get too close to the bone, but I too have no intention of causing offence;

I say don't worry about it (Even though I personally do worry about it – funny really)

Atheists are 10 a penny over here – plenty more were they came from.

so now I simply skip the postings from people whom I know to be (or have been) deliberately offensive, which makes things a bit quicker for me anyway.

There are plenty of polite people around here, and not many theists willing to discuss their views – so you will be busy just talking to the "nice" people.

You strike me as very interesting & polite.

I try to be… but watch out for my sarcasm, it can cut to the bone.

I promise to let you know if I am offended, but I am pretty thick skinned, so relax, you silly git! ;-)

I will now not hold back on my views or humour… but you are to tell me if I offend in anyway. Some people take religion seriously, and I do not know what it means or what could offend since I have always been an atheist.

As for me, you will find it hard to offend me…

OK… the honeymoon is over; the gloves are off – let's debate.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

133. Comment #62605 by JFHalsey on August 10, 2007 at 10:10 am

Hello; first time poster, long time lurker, as they say. After catching up on this debate, I find it to be quite cordial compared to must online flame wars, and so I thought I might jump in.

First of all, Ash (short for Asher, by any chance?), Lee has already written out a volume of good questions, so I know you already have a lot to respond to. I'll try not to burden you with too much more to answer.

Unlike Lee, I was not raised atheist. For the first 20 years of my life, I was, in fact, one of the most "on fire" evangelical christians you could have met. (Everyone was sure I was going to become a pastor--some still are!)
Anyway, one of the things that got me thinking was the apparent utter sincerity that other people had in their beliefs. In fact, not only were they completely sincere, but many of them led wonderful lives, full of no more or less happiness or heartache then even the best christians I knew. From atheist to buddhist to muslim and on.

Now, this wasn't even really the start of my questioning that eventually led me out of christianity; it was just something that made me vaguely uncomfortable. But I bring it up because I want to ask about your conversion experience you shared with us.
You talk about how you studied the extremely precarious balance our universe exists in, the sheer number of variables that, had they been off the slightest fraction, none of us would be here right now. I agree, it is quite a doozy to contemplate.

But your conclusion--that the god of the christian bible must be true--seems rather suspect, if I may say so. I forget if you said where you live, but I know you said that you hung out with a number of christian friends with whom you enjoyed debating.

Now, bringing us back to my uncomfortable little problem above, don't you think it is possible that, had your friends all been muslim, that your examination of the intracacies (sp?) of the universe would have led you to the conclusion that islam is the true religion? Even more so, if you had been raised in a predominately islamic country? (Forgive me for my presumption, but I'm going to assume you grew up in a predominately christian country, given that most of us on here were).

The same could be asked of you about almost any religion. Why not assume that hinduism is, indeed, the only explanation for how we managed to exist here against all the odds, or paganism, or scientology?

You feel, deep in your heart, that christianity is true. Yet you know that there are billions of people who feel in their heart of hearts that islam is true. There are some people who believe deep down that we're all being manipulated by lizard people in disguise! You can dismiss all of those people's beliefs so casually, but why can't you examine your own with the same critical eye? If God is real, surely he wouldn't mind a little critical comparison, a little insistance on verifiable truth from his followers? What did he give us brains and logic for, if he didn't want us to use them, right?


In short, I just want to know why you think christianity is the obvious solution to the universal questions that your studies put before you, and whether you can admit, even a smidgen, that there's a chance it's more than just a coincidence that you chose to follow the religion of your friends and the mainstream around you?

Other Comments by JFHalsey

134. Comment #62607 by steve99 on August 10, 2007 at 10:34 am

I didn't take the question very seriously at first (booze will do that to you) but, to get to the point, I read a book called Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees. I realised how utterly profound the intricate ballance of the universe is. If a hygrogen atom at the opposite end of the universe was 1 iota bigger or smaller, no Earth, no humanity. The fine ballance of the moon in relation to Earth's delicate orbit, etc. Rees even finds himself, though having written a secular book, forced to deal with the obvious religious implications in the ballance of creation.

I think this is the wrong way to look at things. Firstly, sure, there are some constants that have to be very finely tuned, but others don't have to be. Just read Stephen Baxter's story 'Raft' to see how life could cope in a universe with a hugely different gravitational constant, for example. Other things you describe as finely balanced really aren't... the moon's orbit has varied considerably over the lifetime of the Earth.

Also, fine-tuning is no argument at all for a creator. There is a way of thinking about this that I may be used before on this site. Take a look at the Mandelbrot set... it is a mathematical object of huge complexity, all from a very simple process. Now, most of the space described by that process is very dull indeed, but there are small areas which when magnified have an intricate beauty. The 'space' of universes could be somewhat similar in nature. There is a very, very small set which can contain complexity and life, but that small set is an inevitable part of the whole, just like the patterns in the Mandelbrot set. It is no surprise that life, which needs complexity, arises in the areas which allow complexity to exist.

Also, you limit the possibilities for life... it needs neither Earth or Moon, and certainly does not need a planet orbiting within the 'Goldilocks Zone' around a star. For example, there could turn out to be more life in tidally heated moons of gas giants, even in our solar system, than on rocky planets with surface water.

Other Comments by steve99

135. Comment #62656 by Goldy on August 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Hi Ash! Nice to read you've accepted my assumption on Christianity being the Western religion by default - if only by omission of any retort from you :-) Still whether you accept my point or not is a $64000 dollar question...
As for the grammatical thing, I do actually agree with you. God should be thus, with a capital. I omit it due to the simple reason that I sometimes lift my finger off the shift key too quickly - I am not a natural typist! However, your comments about it did sound a bit off - if you don't mind, don't mention. If you do mention, accept the responses. Simple, no? As for herd mentality - have you read any of the shirt threads (before they shoot off on tangents)? If anything, it shows us as typically human with our cat-like herding instincts. You should be used to it, being religious and all - how many sects are there per religion? All part of the human animal :-)
I will concede defeat on the gameshow front :-( I just don't watch as many as I should. Damn, hate losing! :-D Hence the rather lame one I used above...
OK, have to help pack and look after daughter and stuff - off to Europe in a few hours. 1st time back in almost 6 years, first time for wife and daughter.

Other Comments by Goldy

136. Comment #62662 by Goldy on August 10, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Another wee little point...

You will find Him inside your heart or not at all

I notice a capitalisation of "him". Grammatically unnecessary. But then, you don't care...well, maybe just a wee bit otherwise you'd not have mentioned it :-)
I do wonder about these moments people have, when they "discover" God (or gods - not only a Christian thing). I once woke and felt what felt to me like a vessel passing over me. It was out in space, way above the Earth and I was under it's shadow. I was awake but totally paralysed...and a wee bit anxious, I can tell you. A couple of mates were in the room (we were staying at a mate's place in Reading and sleeping on the floor) and I thought if I could get one of them to shake me, I'd be fine. But no, couldn't talk, couldn't move, couldn't do anything other than blink and breath and hear, which didn't really help. They thought I was having a dream as I was showing what sounded like a bit of agitation but nothing untoward. Aaaaaanyway, the shadow passed over me and once over my feet, I went back to normal. And decided it was over and fell back to sleep :-)
Alien monitoring, perhaps? Only, the wee voice in my head at the time was pointing out my mates didn't experience the same thing, so it must be me adn me alone. Aliens aren't, I assumed, that selective and this reinforced my voices argument that I was awake, but asleep.
I Googled it - one can experience this thing and yes, one is asleep but the brain appears to awake without letting the rest of the body know. Totally natural and rational - no aliens, no spaceship, nothing, just me.
Surely if one "feels" a divine presence, it's the same sort of thing? Surely God, Vishnu, Allah, Zoroaster et al are just like my aliens, a figment of an overactive mind?
Ah, well, waiting for the ride to the airport. Might check in again in a week or so (by when this will have died, unless there's a new Dianelos around ;-)) to see what others say.
Shit, I might even have een touched by God and I rejected it! Ooops! Sorry Big Feller!

Other Comments by Goldy

137. Comment #62672 by Yaweh on August 10, 2007 at 7:43 pm

There is only one true religion, and that is Islam as revealed to us by Muhammad (PBUH), the final prophet of God.

Prophet Isa (AS), who the Christians call Jesus, was sent by God. But his teachings were corrupted by the Jews, who re-wrote his words many times and finally made him into a God 300 years after his death.

Unlike the Bible which has many authors and has been corrupted and mistranslated, the Holy Qur'an is the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as Allah promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind.

The Holy Qur'an states, "They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them." Surah Nisaa, V 157.

Jesus (AS) spoke of the coming of Muhammad (PBUH): "If you love me, Keep my commandments. And I will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever." (Bible, John 14-15/16)

The "comforter" was first "Pargaleeta" in the Gospels. But the word was deleted by interpreters and translators and changed at times to "Spirit of Truth" and at other times, to "comforter" and sometimes "Holy Spirit." The original Greek and its meaning is "one whom people praise exceedingly." The sense of the word, then, is applicable to the word Muhammad in Arabic, since Muhammad means "the praised one."

May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

Other Comments by Yaweh

138. Comment #62681 by heathen2 on August 10, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Regarding the last post, #137, What is the (AS) supposed to stand for?

Other Comments by heathen2

139. Comment #62682 by roach on August 10, 2007 at 8:59 pm

I didn't read the posts so this may have been covered already but whatever.

The fine tuning argument would only work for deism. It gives zero credibility or plausability to any particular god i.e. Zeus, Osiris, the Judeo-Christian deity, etc.

Other Comments by roach

140. Comment #62690 by Yaweh on August 10, 2007 at 9:54 pm

AS = alaihi al-salam which means "upon him be peace".

Everywhere there is Christianity we see hypocrisy, because Christianity does not fit the nature of human beings. Islam accepts human beings as they actually are, and gives us laws that lead to peace and brotherhood.

Other Comments by Yaweh

141. Comment #62730 by LeeC on August 11, 2007 at 3:43 am

Yaweh,

You could be the first Muslin I have debated, we will see.

To you I will ask the same question as I did to Ash – Evidence!

Have you any evidence for your god or the writings in your holy book (Qur'an or Koran?).

I will also ask you further questions.

Is the god of the Qur'an a good and merciful god, or an evil bugger just like in the bible?

Also, I thought everyone who was not muslin was deemed as evil and should not be spoken to in case they "turn you away from god"? Am I wrong in thinking this?

You quote:

Unlike the Bible which has many authors and has been corrupted and mistranslated, the Holy Qur'an is the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, as Allah promised to preserve it till the last day for all of humankind.

So I am wrong in thinking that more than one person actually wrote down the "holy" words into a book. I mean, Muhammad didn't actually write down the whole book himself did he?

So is it not a collection of "memories" of what Muhammad may have recited to his followers. And not all the followers agreed precisly on the words and so a selection committee was required to choose which were indeed the "true" words of Muhammad?

So corruption is more than possible, as for translation – well, you tell me, is the language used in the original Qur'an still use today, or is it a little like Latin – people may understand it, but it is not in use today?

These are just questions, since I do not know the Qur'an very well – however, the problem with any god still the lack of evidence.

Can you please provide some?

I am sure I will be back with more questions.

Thanks

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

142. Comment #62731 by PopeStig on August 11, 2007 at 3:48 am

I disagree… (so we cannot even agree on that? Sorry)

I believe a god is very, very unlikely and without evidence I will not believe in a god.

However I do not want to call myself an agnostic since this may seem I am just 50/50.

hehe...perhaps atheism needs to be defined as people that think the likelyhood of one or more gods existing is less than 25% :-)

Other Comments by PopeStig

143. Comment #62732 by JFHalsey on August 11, 2007 at 3:50 am

"Islam accepts human beings as they actually are, and gives us laws that lead to peace and brotherhood."

Must...resist...feeding...troll.... >.<

Other Comments by JFHalsey

144. Comment #62735 by PopeStig on August 11, 2007 at 4:29 am

Islam accepts human beings as they actually are, and gives us laws that lead to peace and brotherhood.

Human beings