1101. Comment #235803 by decius on August 23, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Bien tornado, al.

El pescado tuyo esta de puta madre.

Other Comments by decius

1102. Comment #235820 by al-rawandi on August 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

All I learned in Mexico....




Si Toma, No Maneje.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1103. Comment #235955 by scottishgeologist on August 24, 2008 at 1:01 am

Jamcam87 said:

"I was in the process of compiling the evidence which shows that DR is homophobic and I noticed you had already done it. Thanks! "

The problem (although he probbaly doesnt see it that way) for evangelicals like David, is that, by taking a "high" view of Scripture, in this case with respect to homosexuality, he is "painted into a corner".

I dont know David Robertson, but I know several people in his church, and I have to say that most of the ones I know are perfectly reasonable decent people. I doubt if any of them "hate" homosexuals, but their chaining themselves to the holy book's inerrancy means that they are de facto homophobes.

And it gets quite interesting whe you make closer acquaintance. I know of several evangelicals who are invlolved in various arts projects and who come in contact with gays frequently. They all seem to get on just great.

But if you were to ask them the more difficult questions, like "should gays marry?" or should "gays be allowed to adopt" "do you approve of gay sex?" then they would get uncomfortable and come out with that stuff about "love the sinner, hate the sin" before moving swiftly on to another subject.

Its fascinating to watch - almost as if they are embarassed by it.

You know if only they would take a more "liberal" view of scripture, they could save themselves a lot of grief...

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

1104. Comment #235957 by Laurie Fraser on August 24, 2008 at 1:04 am

We love homosexuals, as long as they don't act on their base, perverted instincts, SG. (That's the message, isn't it?)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

1105. Comment #236013 by scottishgeologist on August 24, 2008 at 3:13 am

Laurie

Unfortunately, that's the way it seems to be. It appears to be a major issue in the churches today (something I am sure they wish would go away...)- just look at that nonsense with the Anglicans recently.

It alway goes back to the same thing:- how scripture is viewed. Those that take a high view come over as homophobic. But if a church takes a more liberal view, then they get it in the neck from the conservatives.

I wonder how many web pages, blog entries and forum submissions are "out there" on this subject. It must be tera-bytes.

An interesting case of an evangelical "coming out" as a gay is Roy Clements. Clements was one of Britains leading evangelicals but came out as gay in 1999, sending shock waves through the evangelical world.

From his own web site, (no longer "up" but you can see pages of it through web.archive.org) he says:

As I look deeper into what the Bible says on the issue of same sex relations I am making some astonishing discoveries. It was when a good friend pointed out to me how inescapably fallible we human beings are that suddenly the chasm that I felt I was being stretched across melted away. "It's not that Scripture is fallible or changes; it's our interpretation of it," he said. He gave the example of how Bible-believing Christians changed their position on slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, and how in this century many evangelicals had revised their thinking on the role of women in church leadership.

(from:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050223000922/http://www.royclements.co.uk/essays16.htm)

Clements (who was a SERIOUSLY biblical theologian claims "I am making some astonishing discoveries." Eh? He's been reading and preaching this stuff for years and then suddenly discovers something. Sure. He then goes on to talk about slavery.

The reason for slavery being a no-no now in the churches is because of societal pressure. Not because some "new thing" has been revealed. Same thing with opression of women, although many churches are still very mysogynistic.

Thats the way it is going with homosexuality as well. Societal pressure.

The case of Roy Clements is well worth looking at - its a bit like Ted Haggard in some respects, although I suspect that Roy is basically a decent guy. Ted on the other hand comes over as a slimeball.

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

1106. Comment #236060 by Roland_F on August 24, 2008 at 5:36 am

D.A. Robertson

Roland - one suspects a little bias creeping in here. I read a Phyisics professor from Glasgow who once wrote to the Scotsman stating that in many things Genesis got it surprizingly right. Arno Penzias stated "the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole". But then what would he know about science? He only won the Nobel Prize for discovering the background radiation that proved the Big Bang!

And Fritjoff Capra "shows" that the quantum fluctuations are already described by the cosmic dance of Shiva and quantum entanglement equals the total interconnectedness of matter from Easter religions. So of course the big bang is mentioned in the Bible, maybe you find also Global warming ? You just have to be flexible enough though.

Beside the argument from authority I doubt a physics/cosmology professor would call light before stars , day and night before earth and rotation around the sun etc. . . "surprisingly right" - some out of context quote mining again ??? Like Paul Davies who is including 'the God creator hypothesis' because of Templeton funding as one possible alternative only to totally trash it and is now Robertson quoted as making a theistic case as scientist.

And what's with the differing versions of Genesis : animals before humans in version-1 and Adam as first human before receiving 'entertaining' animals, sorry the 'unerring' word of God has some wrong sequence again !
The only correctly stated evolution sequence is fish before land animals before humans is in version-1 , but that's might really be a randomize hit or simply sequence of primitive towards more complex interpretation even easy to do for Bronze age tribes.

Or what about human age usually reaching 900 years and more, before God changed his mind, but then after this change in age pattern Abraham is still active like a youngster in his 100s, his wife still attracting the desire of foreign kings above 100 years of age, Moses young and fresh in his 150s climbing mountains etc..
Or the flood: heavy rain brings a flood 5 miles high of water level everywhere on earth , where is all the water coming from and to where disappearing after the flood - I really doubt some serious scientist would this call " surprisingly right" or "the best data we have".
In short Genesis looks exactly like the world view of primitive Bonze age tribes scribbled on sheepskin, and not even remotely as the unerring word of God revealing the secrets and scientifically foundations of his creation.

So who is here biased ??

And when commenting on history and archeology maybe A. Penzias haven't checked unbiased books maybe only 'and the Bible is still true' (Und die Bibel hat doch Recht). A quick read of 'the Bible unearthed' from Finkelstein & Silberman would open some eyes about the validity of the Pentateuch = all invented political propaganda of the 7th century BC and no unerring word of God written down from Moses.

Other Comments by Roland_F

1107. Comment #236064 by BillySands on August 24, 2008 at 5:47 am

Roland - one suspects a little bias creeping in here. I read a Phyisics professor from Glasgow who once wrote to the Scotsman stating that in many things Genesis got it surprizingly right. Arno Penzias stated "the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole". But then what would he know about science? He only won the Nobel Prize for discovering the background radiation that proved the Big Bang!

Argument from authority fallacy!

Care to state what genesis got right? Was it the water above the earth? the earth being formed before the sun or one of the two contradictory creation accounts? Or what about the bit that god created? Got any proof of that. Care to mame this physics professor? I have breifly discussed some things with a physics professor from glasgow - wonder if it is the same guy - he had nothing but arguments from incredulity and said things like physics cant account for consciousness, and I should know, i'm a physicist. I challenged him on this with no response.

A quick read of 'the Bible unearthed' from Finkelstein & Silberman would open some eyes about the validity of the Pentateuch = all invented political propaganda of the 7th century BC and no unerring word of God written down from Moses.

Yeah, i recommended that book to robertson before. His response was that they were not proper archaeologists or some guff like that (If I remember correctly, robertson had not even read this book)

Other Comments by BillySands

1108. Comment #236065 by bugaboo on August 24, 2008 at 5:58 am

DR
Arno Penzias is Jewish. So is he only right about the five books of Moses the Psalms, the Bible as a whole? What about the new testament David? No he's wrong there i'm sure and you are right.

Other Comments by bugaboo

1109. Comment #236066 by Roland_F on August 24, 2008 at 6:01 am

1111. Comment #236064 by BillySands:
Yeah, i recommended that book to robertson before. His response was that they were not proper archaeologists or some guff like that (If I remember correctly, robertson had not even read this book)

Well this might be some of the literature Robertson is branding 'atheist archeology" or "atheist history" or "atheist geology"
etc...
Of course true "Christian archeology" is finding evidence even a peace of charcoal from a small hut, 100 years too young for the Biblical date anyway as 'clear evidence' for Jericho and every word in the Bible....
weird , really weird such a distorted worldview !

Other Comments by Roland_F

1110. Comment #236068 by Roland_F on August 24, 2008 at 6:13 am

1112. Comment #236065 by bugaboo
Arno Penzias is Jewish. So is he only right about the five books of Moses the Psalms, the Bible as a whole?

Reminds me at Lord Robert Winston "the story of God" : a science professor, in his evaluation of religions he is more or less trashing them all.
For him as Jew, Jesus if he existed at all, is totally irrelevant for the time and location that he is simply ignored from all Jews hanging around the alleged time of Jesus, the NT as anti-Semitic propaganda, Jews are all smart and discussing all religious text, inconstancies, patched, forgeries of scripture fairy tales - but the Torah of course is the unerring word of God dictated to Moses and taboo for any historical evaluation. 'P' version 'J' etc.. are rubbish sound like algebra, who wants to question the Torah can be ignored as he is for sure not educated in the original ancient languages.
It's like a severe brain blockage, or love makes blind.

And this from an otherwise well educated open minded scientist and BBC author.
==> Delusion, compartmentalization of science from faith even if the entire book of R. Winston is about all the 'wrongs' of other religions on the planet - weird and amazing or actually quite shocking !

And I think this seems to be a pattern also for the 'un-named Glasgow Physic professor" of Robertson or of Robertson himself : just reading in the Bible wearing their pink glasses and suppressing all factual errors, inconsitencies, forgeries, and ignore surrounding circumstances of the time = hopeless !

Other Comments by Roland_F

1111. Comment #236221 by NMcC on August 24, 2008 at 11:37 am

I can't see where any kind of conversation is possible with someone like Robertson. I simply can't understand how anyone can so blithely accept that a supernatural being, like the God Robertson worships, could willingly, and, apparently, unconcernedly, kick things off the way He supposedly did, knowing it would all end in such untold human misery. This is what Robertson has claimed in his latest 'response'. He says outright that God foreseen the 'angelic rebellion', and although he conveniently (from his point of view) ignored my other questions as to why God didn't foresee the 'fall' of man (and woman), the uselessness of His world-wide drowning feat and the apparent failure of His suicidal sacrifice, if He foreseen the angelic rebellion, He must have foreseen these failures too.

So, Robertson is happy to worship and, according to him, love, an entity that knew His actions were doomed to result in untold human misery, but went ahead anyway, with no other discernible purpose, according to the likes of Robertson, than having Himself executed at some point in the future by way of providing the antidote to this human misery, when He could have avoided it all by simply setting up at the outset the conditions that apparently are to prevail in heaven anyway. And Robertson has the gall to infer that something like homosexuality is immoral and that HUMANS, generally, are 'polluted with sin'.

In fact, Robertson, a mere sinful mortal, isn't even as bad or as callous as his 'loving' God (in as much as these terms mean anything as attributes of a 'God'). If he was, when his kids were toddlers, whenever they went near the fire after first being warned not to, he'd have just let them plunge in headlong. Afterwards, through their screams of agony, Robertson would have calmly explained to them how, although he knew they would fall into the fire before they were even born and was responsible for building the fire and positioning it right in their path in the first place, his unbounded love for them notwithstanding, they were merely suffering the consequences of their disobedience and deserved everything they got. In regard to the fact that his kids were in a state of innocence and were uncomprehending as to the real dangers of the fire, Robertson would have simply shrugged his shoulders.

Outlandish scenario? It's exactly the same scenario and principle involved in the nonsensical Garden of Eden fable.

Of course, if Robertson had had an inkling, let alone absolute knowledge, that this was going to be his children's ghastly fate, he'd have worn a condom. In short, despite his blather about morality being derived from a belief in God, Robertson himself is morally superior to his God, and he knows it.

And, furthermore, I challenge him now to deny it.

Other Comments by NMcC

1112. Comment #237356 by The Reverend Dark on August 26, 2008 at 11:39 am

David thus swung and missed.

Anyway on to the two examples you give. The Bible does not state that epilepsy was caused by devils. And Jesus was not teaching a botany lesson when he spoke of the mustard seed.

Ahh. Not a biology Lesson? Just a scientific inaccuracy to make an unrelated point. David, do you have any idea how desperate that sounds in the context of your original comment concerning the scientific accuracy of the bible? Hardly the least of all seeds (and mustard seeds don't grow into trees either.) The bible is scientifically accurate, except when it isn't, but you still can't find an example after twenty five years of professional study?

PS: Epilepsy Matthew 17. (lunacy, with symptoms that resemble epilepsy. Cured by rebuking the devil.)

I notice that you made no address of the Global Flood of Noah - an event that touches both the scientific and the historical.

Yes or no. Did it happen? If so, when.

Come on David, squirm all you want. Here's the reminder.

As regards the latter I have been studying it professionally for 25 years and have yet to find any scientific or historical inaccuracy. But of course you know different.

Put up or shut up time David.

The Global Flood of Noah.

Yes it happened or No it did not happen.

If yes, when did this event occur?
In no, then you are a liar in regards to the scientific and historical merit of the bible (of which you can find no example in 25 years of professional study), or at the most generous, deluded to the point of drool-dripping idiocy.

Or is it just an allegorical story? I would certainly accept that as an answer; but as you well know, that answer causes far more problems for you than it solves.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

1113. Comment #237666 by scottishgeologist on August 27, 2008 at 12:26 am

David replied:

"Scottish Geologist - to be honest I don't know the answers to all of them. I would tenatively suggest that it has to do with God 'breathing his spirit into the pre-homo-sapiens and so the man and woman became 'living beings' in the sense of spiritual consiousness. "

I know this has got a bit lost among other stuff, but my original point was that the Fall of man was inconsistent with evolution and that includes theistic evolution.

I appreciate the honesty in your answer, but it doesnt sound very convincing. Sort of "Rowan Williams -ish"

There is also the business that Eve's creation is most certainly not evolutionary according to the Bible. Taking a rib and creating a fully formed human female is the sort of thing that I think most people would refer to as creationist.

As I mentioned earlier the whole of christianity hinges on "the Fall".

For several years I tried to seep this particular issue under the carpet - but there comes apoint where the bump gets too big and you simply cant ignore it. Trying to reconcile the biblical story of creation with evolution is simply impossible.

One of them has to be wrong.

:-)
SG

PS: I would argue that this issue is indeed a "killer question" (as is the death of Judas regarding bible inerrancy)

Another one is the business of "Cainan" in Lukes gospel. There USED to be an article on the Answers in Genesis web site about this, written by Jonathan Sarfati. The article has now gone..... hmmm.

(However web.archive.org refers to it. The page is:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050207121702/http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3748.asp

Good old Dr Dino refers to it however. If you want to see biblical literalists fighting like two pups in a bag, have a look at:

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=52

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

1114. Comment #237696 by Vaal on August 27, 2008 at 3:46 am

David Robertson

I would tentatively suggest that it has to do with God 'breathing his spirit into the pre-homo-sapiens and so the man and woman became 'living beings' in the sense of spiritual consciousness.

My goodness David, your wishful thinking knows no bounds. Do you actually reflect on what you are saying, or does it just spout out like an endless waterfall of inanity.

So, let me get this right. God waited for nearly 10 billion years to create the Earth, after all, those heavy elements that are needed for a planet like ours need to be created in the furnace of a supernova. Being as he is God, he must have been a bit bored having to wait for that, couldn't he just have created the heavy elements when the Universe was born. So, what was he doing all this time, playing bar billiards, learning chess, worshiping himself, waiting for a bit of sinning before he could move those continents about?

Then, 4.5 billion years ago, he decides to create the Earth. Then he waits for another billion or so years before he can get the wherewithal to create cells. Not very omnipotent is he, or maybe just lazy?

Why is he so keen on humans? After all, Dinosaurs were a much more successful species as they flourished on the planet for over 180 million years, before God decided to snooker them by administering a pot with an asteroid. Not very nice of him.

So, eventually, hominids appear in several forms. Did he decide, hhhmm, that one looks a bit more like me, I think I will inject a soul into them so I can have some company and get some well deserved worship, as I am REALLY bored now. Now, which hominid did he breathe a soul into? Was it an Australopithecus, and which flavour of Australopithecus? Maybe he was waiting till the first Homo to appear in Homo Habilis, but then Homo Habilis was scarcely cleverer than a chimpanzee, does that mean chimpanzees have souls, and if not, why not?

Did he wait for Homo Erectus, or did he wait for archaic Homo Sapiens to trot out on the African plains? Are you saying Homo Erectus never loved, never had language and empathy, never considered the world around them, never considered their mortality. And what about Homo Neanderthalis, he believed in an after-life, had a larger brain than us, cared for his fellow Neanderthal. What had God got against him to introduce fellow hominids that pushed them into extinction? Maybe God didn't like the idea of having that huge brow ridge? Is he perchance a little vain?

So, about 14 billion years after the Universe was born, along comes Homo Sapiens to give him a good well deserved worship. Man, he is one patient fellow. Let's hope he doesn't send along another asteroid or a supernova blast to wipe us all out, or it would seem like a terrible waste.

Of course, being the capricious chap he is, he is just waiting for us to destroy ourselves in his name, and then go and see if those Xorts on Alpha Centauri are keen on worshiping him. Of course, they look like insects, which is a bit of a bummer!

Sounds preposterous, doesn't it? Would make a great sermon though :)

Other Comments by Vaal

1115. Comment #237705 by BillySands on August 27, 2008 at 4:14 am

Maybe he was waiting till the first Homo to appear

Nah, god doesn't like homos and neither does David because his magic friend does his thinking for him.

Other Comments by BillySands

1116. Comment #237712 by irate_atheist on August 27, 2008 at 4:24 am

863. Comment #233483 by David A Robertson -

Irate comes up with another classic. Why is attributing climate change to human greed twisting and lying? And greed and selfishness is a sin. So perhaps Irate can go out and drive his gas guzzler and state its all to do with science, nothing to do with me....

But, of course, I do not drive a gas guzzler and have actively campaigned to have them taxed higher both on a local and national basis.

Baseless assertion, wilfull twisting of my original statement, and Robertson's messiah complex all rolled into one.

DR is, quite simply, a mendacious little cunt.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1117. Comment #237714 by Laurie Fraser on August 27, 2008 at 4:28 am

Careful, irate, David's going to call you just another clone of Styrer, if you keep up that sort of language, you gas guzzler, you.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

1118. Comment #237717 by Tyler Durden on August 27, 2008 at 4:31 am

Comment #237696 by Vaal

Vaal,

An excellent summary of the issues theists have to contend with - usually by twisting themselves into pretzel-like shapes in order to do it!

Perhaps we should stop treating Robertson like a rational-thinking adult, and more like a child, who constantly seeks assurance from a higher source of authority, while walking around with a security blanket, all the while mocking what he clearly doesn't understand.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

1119. Comment #237719 by Laurie Fraser on August 27, 2008 at 4:33 am

Tyler - "Perhaps we should stop treating Robertson like a rational-thinking adult, and more like a child, who constantly seeks assurance from a higher source of authority, while walking around with a security blanket, all the while mocking what he clearly doesn't understand. "

Absolutely spot on!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

1120. Comment #237761 by al-rawandi on August 27, 2008 at 5:48 am

The Bible says the earth is flat, plain and simple.




As it turns out, scientists are starting to lean toward the round earth theory.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1121. Comment #237762 by Laurie Fraser on August 27, 2008 at 5:52 am

"Round earth theory"? When did this happen, al?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

1122. Comment #237763 by scottishgeologist on August 27, 2008 at 5:59 am

al-rawandi

There are the verses:

Luke: "The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world"

Matthew: "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."

These verses imply that the world is flat. Either that, or the expression "all the kingdoms of the world" refers to those countries of the holy land. In which case, it is wrong.


Some have suggested that Jesus was able to see round corners (bending light) But if that was the case, whu bother going up a mountain anyway? The fact that a mountain is mentioned implies straight lines of sight.

Some have suggested that its metaphorical. Which is fine, but where does metaphor end and reality begin? "Woolworths Sweet Counter Theology" again (Pick n Mix!!)

Just another bible problem.

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

1123. Comment #237765 by scottishgeologist on August 27, 2008 at 6:03 am

Round Earth Theory?

So presumably these pictures are the work of Satan:

http://startswithabang.com/?p=352

(Just like those fossils he planted....)

:-))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

1124. Comment #237768 by Tyler Durden on August 27, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #237763 by scottishgeologist

Some have suggested that its metaphorical. Which is fine, but where does metaphor end and reality begin? "Woolworths Sweet Counter Theology" again (Pick n Mix!!)

Fantastic. Kudos! :)

Check out responses from the likes of Robertson/txpiper/kardashovel -

when they can't reconcile it with reality (multiple creation stories, flat earth, hares chewing the cud) = metaphorical; when they look to oppress (homosexuality, women, slavery) = reality.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

1125. Comment #237769 by al-rawandi on August 27, 2008 at 6:11 am

Remeber it is just a theory, like evolution.





SG,



Actually do a google search; "Bible" and "Flat Earth". The OT isn't as shy as the NT in saying so. The earth is flat, and angels stand at the corners of the earth and direct the wind. Most of the wind directed these days comes from D. Robertson, and is quite malodorous.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1126. Comment #237774 by Tyler Durden on August 27, 2008 at 6:19 am

Al,

Don't forget:

1 Samuel 2:8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them."

Isaiah 13:10 "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine."

Of course, this is all, ahem, "metaphorical".

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

1127. Comment #237776 by BillySands on August 27, 2008 at 6:27 am

Flat earth bible http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Other Comments by BillySands

1128. Comment #237778 by severalspeciesof on August 27, 2008 at 6:40 am

...The earth is flat, and angels stand at the corners of the earth and direct the wind. Most of the wind directed these days comes from D. Robertson, and is quite malodorous.

and just like the wind, D.R. comes and goes without much substance, yet can cause much damage (though not around here!).

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

1129. Comment #237855 by NMcC on August 27, 2008 at 10:10 am

"Some have suggested that Jesus was able to see round corners (bending light) But if that was the case, whu bother going up a mountain anyway? The fact that a mountain is mentioned implies straight lines of sight."

And as I recall, the Devil flew Jesus to the top of the mountain, which, it would appear, implies that Satan had some way of getting Jesus to do his bidding.

Why did they have to 'fly' there anyway? Why couldn't they have just disappeared from one place and reappeared in the other?

Other Comments by NMcC

1130. Comment #238399 by Warlock on August 28, 2008 at 5:24 am

"This myth of christ has served us well" Pope Leo X

Never before in the field of human development have so many been fucked up by such unutterable rubbish.

Other Comments by Warlock

1131. Comment #239742 by David A Robertson on August 30, 2008 at 9:38 am

Just returned this weekend to have a look at this thread. Disappointed that the level and tone has dropped even further and that you seem to be reduced to playing the 'homophobic ' card. I guess thats what happens when you can't cope with reason and logic - just resort to name calling and self reassurance. Anyway a few comments. As the standard has dropped so markedly perhaps you will forgive me if these posts are my last comments on this thread. I am sure you will be able to come up with the same accusations and insults on other ones as well (remarkable how unoriginal so many of the postings are).

And atheist are accused of not being familiar with scripture.

Chewedbarber - are you saying that Penzias was unfamiliar with physics (perhaps he won the Nobel prize for gardening?!) or the Bible?

You might find more interesting things if you took the time to read the posts.

Oystein - I do. Sadly I read them all. Hence ColdLazurus's comments. But I guess you just cannot comprehend how anyone can read all these wonderful atheist posts and not be convinced by their dazzling brilliance!

As regards your comments on the Milliband thread. I'm afraid that no-one has answered the question as to why, if atheism has no impact on your politics (because atheists don't believe or do anything because of their atheism), it is a good thing, or even something worth remarking on, that Milliband is an atheist. Lots of squirming. No logical, reasonable consistent answers.

What on earth does that even refer to?
You disreputable twister.

He did? That refers to your comment that God did not foresee the angelic rebellion. Perhaps you should read your own posts before you accuse others of being 'disreputable twisters'?

I conclude that you only have evidence that satisfies you. Such evidence is blind. You have blind faith.

ColdLazarus - your post is fascinating. Thank you for it. I think the problem is that you too have a faith, but you also have a blind spot which means that you cannot see it as a faith at all. You talk about the 'scientific method' as though it were self-evidently the only source of certainty and truth. You adopt the philosophy of logical positivism which is inherently self contradictory - because the statement that the only truth is that which can be demonstrated by scientific empirical evidence, is itself a statement that is not empirical or scientific. My evidence is considerably more than you state (have a look at the last chapter of my book for a summary of it). But what is the evidence for your faith?

I agree this thread seems to be dying, but I really would like to know which bit of the sermon on the mount you are thinking of. I have just re-read it, but I cannot see any saying which has direct relevance to the question I asked about conception/contraception and the rules we ought to follow. Jesus makes a brief reference to marriage and possible divorce for adultery, but he says nothing at all which would provide rules for making babies, let alone for stem-cell research, homosexuality, abortion, and general relations between men and women: all the issues which are subjects of deep divisions in our contemporary society. I ask again: how, specifically, would you deduce a code of conduct on these issues from his words?

Polydactyl - great questions. I think that it is a mistake to see the Bible as a rule book from which one gets ones morals. rather it is the story of Gods dealing with human beings - including moral guidelines and principles. From the sermon on the Mount I would take basic principles such as respect for life, faithfulness, anti-materialism, loving your enemy and then see how these can be incorporated into various societies. Your question about who gets to define the rules is not answered by removing the Bible as a source of the rules. In fact the situation is made a lot worse - those who get to define the rules will be those who have power, money and access to the media and politicians. Might is Right. I prefer the view that there is a universal law which is applicable to every human being no matter who you are, how much money you have, or what country you belong to.

Atheism is not true because it is self-evidently true. It is true because ALL the evidence we have ever gathered points to it being true. There's no way around it Robertson, it just does, and the feeble attempts of theists such as yourself to prove otherwise have availed nothing for over ten thousand ye

Cartomancer, Thanks. Brilliant. ALL the evidence points to atheism. There is no way around it. It just does. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is just feeble. No one has ever been able to do it. The fact that the majority of human beings have been theists is of course only because of their stupidity. But now we atheists have seen the light. We know the truth. We just know. All the evidence points to the fact that we are right. Thats why we can't talk to theists or debate with them. How can one debate with such inanity? If only they could see that our fundamentalist certainties were right then there would be no problem. Who knows - perhaps when we get power we will be able to lead them into enlightenment. Or at least re-educate them. We must rid the world of this anti-rational, illogical virus.

Odd then that last year you came on this site and asked why homosexuality should be considered any more acceptable than paedophilia. t

Steve - indeed. And why should it be considered any more acceptable than hetrosexuality? or adultry? or polygamy? or bestiality? My point was not to make an accusation but simply to ask how we define acceptable and non-acceptable sexualities. The fact that no-one has been able to answer this but simply retreats into the name calling of 'you homophobic bigot', speaks volumes.

Regarding the WCF, you still swear the oath that the pope is the antichrist

Poor Billy - still not got over your Pope obsession yet? I thought you were beginning to replace it with other ones. I know its really hard to get things into the head of someone who has already decided the opposite and I know that I have tried this many times before but let me have a go again - I did not, have never and will never sworn an oath that the Pope is the anti-Christ. Mainly because he is not and such a statement would be a joke. Now which part of that is difficult for you to grasp?

ltic have a large catholic following - many of them are religiously blinkered knuckle draggers).

There speaks the good old Proddy atheist Rangers fan. And he accuses me of bigotry!

It does make me realise how slimy David is when he says how reasonable I can be in discussions. I am reasonable, yet wicked, and (apparently) I feel worthless and spread disease. I suspect David feels virtuous because he can actually stomach responding to me.

Steve - I believe that every human being is wicked (including myself). We are a mixture of good and bad. What we do with our sexuality is an expression of that - not the cause of it.

So as well as believing homophobia is stupid and evil you also believe that homosexuals are condemmed to eternal suffering by your oh-so-loving God?

Jamcam - likewise. I believe that all human beings are condemned to eternal death without God because that is what they choose. If people choose the alternative offered by God - through Jesus Christ and what he has done for us in dying for our sins - then that is what they get. Anyway as it is impossible for anyone to discuss the issue of homosexuality rationally here (mainly because it is the shibboleth and always results in a wave of emotive and anti-rational accusations) you will forgive me for not dealing with any more of the Robertson is a homophobe accusations (I am not).

All the best....

Other Comments by David A Robertson

1132. Comment #239743 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 9:43 am

DR-

The fact that no-one has been able to answer this but simply retreats into the name calling of 'you homophobic bigot', speaks volumes.

It was answered. In detail. It is about harm and consent. Sex with children and with animals cannot involve consent.

Steve - I believe that every human being is wicked (including myself). We are a mixture of good and bad. What we do with our sexuality is an expression of that - not the cause of it.

David - do you believe that homosexuals of whatever gender can engage in physical love within a committed relationship and that that is fine morally?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1133. Comment #239746 by AllanW on August 30, 2008 at 9:46 am

Good grief! Does anybody know how to get in touch with that stalwart of the Wee Frees David Robertson? Because we need to let him know that someone continues to post in his name and as we all know (ad nauseam) David has witnessed to us with his own sworn word that he has been censored and banned from this site four times. So ...

Or it just might be another example of Davids lying, duplicitous character being demonstrated to us. Bear with me, I'll have to cheque which one it is.


Time passes ...

Ah! Ok. It's the real one so he must be lying again. No reason to panic, alls normal here.

Other Comments by AllanW

1134. Comment #239749 by Vaal on August 30, 2008 at 9:49 am

Aw David, how disappointing, just more hot air saying nothing.

Come on, admit it, you are just a closet atheist.

Other Comments by Vaal

1135. Comment #239756 by Diacanu on August 30, 2008 at 10:07 am

Davey, Davey, give me your answer true-

I guess thats what happens when you can't cope with reason and logic

Pot, kettle.

*Yawn*

That all you got?
How dull.
You've left me listless.
Like church.

Other Comments by Diacanu

1136. Comment #239758 by Polydactyl on August 30, 2008 at 10:07 am

David Robertson:

That really isn't an answer, you know. The devil is always in the details:
tell me just how the sermon on the mount can be used to guide one's thinking on these matters. If I were to argue, say, that 'respect for life' leads me to favour stem-cell research (it would perhaps ameliorate terrible suffering), birth-control (we have to do the best by the children we have), abortion (ditto), loving sexual relationships of all stripes, and the exact equality of status for men and women alike, would you agree? And if not, what would you base your argument on: that the text seems to you to mean something different? That you are a better interpreter� --more learned, more rational, or that some power has granted you some revelation about the meaning?

Having an ancient sacred text as 'source of the rules' merely throws the problem back to what is a reasonable modern interpretation of the rules. Why not just start with reason in the first place?

Other Comments by Polydactyl

1137. Comment #239767 by mordacious1 on August 30, 2008 at 10:16 am

Vaal

"Come on, admit it, you are just a closet atheist."

There is no need to insult us.

Other Comments by mordacious1

1138. Comment #239778 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 10:32 am

Dodgy Chequerson wrote:

I guess thats what happens when you can't cope with reason and logic

Emphasis preceding a tu-quoque logical fallacy based on a false premise (lack of faith equals faith).

I think the problem is that you too have a faith

A hush falls over the audience, as the denying-the-antecedent logical fallacy is wheeled out. He firsts dismisses empiricism, then he uses it as an argument.

You adopt the philosophy of logical positivism which is inherently self contradictory - because the statement that the only truth is that which can be demonstrated by scientific empirical evidence, is itself a statement that is not empirical or scientific.

Drum-roll introducing moronic argumentum ad populum.

The fact that the majority of human beings have been theists is of course only because of their stupidity

Again denying the antecedent and doubletalk.

I think that it is a mistake to see the Bible as a rule book from which one gets ones morals. rather it is the story of Gods dealing with human beings - including moral guidelines and principles. From the sermon on the Mount I would take basic principles such as respect for life, faithfulness, anti-materialism, loving your enemy and then see how these can be incorporated into various societies. Your question about who gets to define the rules is not answered by removing the Bible as a source of the rules.

Grand finale with a non-sequitur coupled with the most classical special pleading and inconsistency of christianity. (Jesus died for you, but he resurrected, therefore he never died for anybody).

If people choose the alternative offered by God - through Jesus Christ and what he has done for us in dying for our sins - then that is what they get.

What were you saying about logic and reason, Davieboy?

Other Comments by decius

1139. Comment #239781 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #239778 by decius

We ought to set up "Fallacy Bingo".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1140. Comment #239790 by AllanW on August 30, 2008 at 10:41 am

Comment #239778 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 10:32 am

Was terrific. I second the call to create and distribute a 'Fallacy Bingo' card to bring enjoyment to casual readers of delusional posters on this site.

See this for a model;

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/bingo-creationi.html

Other Comments by AllanW

1141. Comment #239796 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 10:47 am

Steve, I am all for it.


Thanks, AllanW.

Other Comments by decius

1142. Comment #239797 by MPhil on August 30, 2008 at 10:49 am

Decius,

logical positivism - in it's strict form - is indeed what Robertson says it is. But logical positivism is not what was defended or employed here - so Robertson's failure was attacking a strawman.

Of course, we pointed out to Robertson many times that there are a) non self-denying variants of logical positivism and b) alternatives to it that lead to the same conclusions about what he says.

I think very few people on here (if any) would say that the only truth is that which can be demonstrated by empirical evidence.

There are also pragmatic necessities, logical "evidence"(logically conclusive argument not involving empirical data) and so forth.
In the end - the conclusions are the same - theism is untenable. It is either logically false (because contradictory) or completely unjustified, unsubstantiated and too unclear to have any definitive meaning.

Steve,

Sex with children and with animals cannot involve consent.

I think it's not about "simple" consent, but about informed consent by an individual capable of reason (meaning in this case "capable of passing informed, reasonable judgements about one's own good and the good of others") - you take away either of those ("informed" or "capable of reason") and the consent is irrelevant.

Other Comments by MPhil

1143. Comment #239799 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:54 am

Comment #239797 by MPhil

You are, of course, right. "Informed" is the key idea.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1144. Comment #239800 by decius on August 30, 2008 at 11:00 am

Comment #239797 by MPhil

logical positivism - in it's strict form - is indeed what Robertson says it is...so Robertson's failure was attacking a strawman.

I agree on both accounts, but his refutation is nevertheless fallacious, unless I miss something.

Edit- To clarify, he treats it as an axiom, which most definitely is not.

Other Comments by decius

1145. Comment #239801 by Bonzai on August 30, 2008 at 11:00 am

When did God ask for Mary's consent when he supposedly impregnated her, informed or otherwise?

When did God inform human about what his supposed agenda is for us except demanding blind obedience?

If we apply God's approach indeed raping small children and animals would be completely acceptable.

Other Comments by Bonzai

1146. Comment #239802 by Quetzalcoatl on August 30, 2008 at 11:01 am

If only they could see that our fundamentalist certainties were right then there would be no problem.

I wonder how many times attempts to link "atheism" and "fundamentalism" have to be refuted before he gets the message.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1147. Comment #239804 by epeeist on August 30, 2008 at 11:03 am

Comment #239797 by MPhil

I think it's not about "simple" consent, but about informed consent by an individual capable of reason

Agreed - this would also cover the group not so far mentioned, adults who for whatever reason are who unable to give consent.

Other Comments by epeeist

1148. Comment #239811 by NMcC on August 30, 2008 at 11:18 am

I vote to simply ignore the useless waste of space from now on. He's got no interest in answering anything other than the little bits he cherry picks. I have two posts relating to him above, one that consists of a couple of words and would pass for rhetorical, and another consisting of 4 or 5 paragraphs posing various questions that point up the fallacies of his nonsense and ending with a direct challenge to him to deny that he is more moral than his 'God'.

Guess which one he 'addresses' and which one he completely ignores?

Other Comments by NMcC

1149. Comment #239822 by MPhil on August 30, 2008 at 11:38 am

decius,

Well, logical positivism subscribes to strong verificationism (something that is indeed unreasonable - since we can only ever falsify statements about the empirical realm, not verify them - though we can corroborate them): A proposition is true if it empirically verified, a proposition is false if it is empirically falsified - and if neither can be done, it has no truth-value. Such statements are then called "meaningless", since logical positivism (better called "logical empiricism") states that the meaning of a proposition are its truth-conditions

But the verificationist-principle is itself a statement, a proposition (or a collection of propositions), applied to itself, it says of itself that that it is meaningless.

Robertson gave the short version - nevertheless, I think it is correct.

But then, there is also "weak verificationism" - there is Popper's Critical Rationalism and countless other positions that lead to the same conclusions about theism.

epeeist,

that's the idea :)

Other Comments by MPhil

1150. Comment #239827 by stevencarrwork on August 30, 2008 at 11:54 am

Robertson mentions the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus laid down such wonderful principles, such as always putting oil on your head when you fast.

What a waste of space that guy was!

You are god sent on a mission to teach humanity divine wisdom and you prattle on about putting oil on your head when uou fast so that nobody knows you are fasting.

Nothing about never keeping slaves, or conscripting children into armies...

But oil-on-head-when-fasting? That goes in the Sermon on the Mount.

Sorry David, we have read your Bible and know perfectly well it is useless as a guide to morals.

Well, as useless as anything else written by fallible human beings. Even the Biblical writers got some things right now and then!

Other Comments by stevencarrwork