Comments by Corky

1. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #212164 by Corky on July 16, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Kristopher, it's true that not many mighty and not many wise are "called" but many, many weak and foolish are called to confound the mighty.

Paul told you that just so you can have feelings of being "special". The only way you can confound the mighty is to talk so foolish that the mighty are confounded at your ignorance.

You can probably read the words of the bible writers but you don't grasp that it is psychological BS that they are feeding you.

Paul also told his followers to stay single (if they could) and the married to act as if they were single (in other words, don't start any families) because "the time is short".

If time was short 2,000 years ago, what time is it now?

2. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #99474 by Corky on December 16, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Communistic dictatorships run by evil men was the cause of the atrocities of Stalin and Pol Pot. Atheism had nothing to do with it. That they happened to be atheists is completely outside the cause for which they murdered people, which was the cause of totalitarianism. They were just plain old ordinary evil men - with power.

The BTK serial killer was a fundamentalist Christian Sunday school teacher. Does that mean Sunday school teachers are serial killers? Should Sunday school teachers apologize for what that evil man did? Are Sunday school teachers in any way responsible for what this man did?

Evil men will do evil things, whether he is a fundamentalist Sunday school teacher or a pseudo-Catholic dictator like Hitler or a communist ideologist like Stalin.

Christianity on the other hand had a pious man in charge who was following a religious ideology in murdering innocent people to bring them in line with the church's ideology and theology.

There is no atheist ideology to dictate anything akin to something like mass murders. It takes dictatorships like Hitler's, Stalin's and the Pope's to cause such things - when they have the power, that is.

Maybe that's the reason for atheists to be so adamantly opposed to theocracies. I know that's my reason.

3. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #86180 by Corky on November 8, 2007 at 2:51 pm

How about "Apitheosian", Greek for unbelieving one?

4. The truth in religion

Comment #84216 by Corky on November 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm

No progress will be made in the debate about religious belief unless participants are prepared to recognize that the issue of truth is as important to religion as it is to science.

Truth and religion aren't even kin to each other. Religion is about beliefs and deception, science is about facts and evidence. Where is there room for "progress" between the two? Does the Rev. think that atheism and religion may reach a consensus?

Dawkins invokes Bertrand Russell's parable of the teapot irrationally claimed to be in unobserved orbit in the solar system. Of course there are no grounds for belief in this piece of celestial crockery, but there are grounds offered for religious belief, though admittedly different people evaluate their persuasiveness differently.

There is as much grounds for a belief in the celestial teapot as there is for a God, none. That's the point of the parable.

Religion does not have access to absolute proof of its beliefs but, on careful analysis, nor does science.

Religion has no evidence at all, much less proof of any sort. On the other hand science works from known facts and lets the evidence lead the theory.

In all realms of human inquiry, the interlacing of experience and interpretation introduces a degree of precariousness into the argument.

You will need something which to interpret first and religion has nothing, no evidence at all, to interpret. Inquiries into the existence of a God cannot be done, you have to just believe it at the outset for it to have any meaning at all.

5. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #83066 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Religion was useful in ancient times as a unifying force to form a nation. Then it became abusive to it's own people and became a means of control of the masses by priest/king elites. Today it's used for legal robbery and mind control.

6. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #83062 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 7:19 pm

I agree that something cannot come from nothing and you can't make something from nothing either.

7. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #83056 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Love is proved all the time, else there wouldn't be any marriages or family reunions. Now, your other half may be fooled but you have proved to them that you loved them or else they wouldn't have married you.

8. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #83048 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 5:45 pm

"Science can't tell us why we're here or what is the meaning of our lives."

Who says there is a why? Probably to procreate, like any other creature on the planet. The meaning of our lives is what we make it, nothing more nothing less. We certainly are not here to serve a non-existent entity.

9. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #83044 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 5:17 pm

If you accept the supernatural you must think that life is church and bible study. Isn't there anything else you enjoy?

10. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82914 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 8:39 am

It's another one of those, "that's not *my* religion". To answer each and every one of the sects of Christendom would take a library of books.

It's also another one of those, "look at the *good* the Christian religion has done". As someone else said, it's a good placebo but a placebo only works because there is nothing wrong to start with.

11. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82510 by Corky on October 26, 2007 at 2:05 pm

I think that since Hitchens knew that D'souza's stawmen and his reference to Hitler/Stalin were coming, he should have answered them in his opening statement. This would have forced D'souza's hand early and the burden of proof would have been on D'souza.

12. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #81971 by Corky on October 25, 2007 at 1:08 pm

The US is a free nation: "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" with no royalty or priestly class above the common people who are able to govern themselves.

13. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #81956 by Corky on October 25, 2007 at 12:51 pm

It is only the extremists who are the problem but there would not be any extremists except for the moderates from which the extremists found their roots.

14. Egypt's fight against female circumcision clashes with tradition

Comment #80667 by Corky on October 22, 2007 at 3:02 pm

FGM not religious? I bet that it is and I bet it pre-dates circumcision by a long time. I would say that it dates to the time that the priesthood consisted of priestess rather than priest.

Before patriarchal religion, came matriarchal and the worship of "the queen of heaven" or "earth mother". Call her Isis or Esther or Asheroth or Ishtar . . . I think the story of Cain and Abel in the bible illustrates that change from matriarchal to patriarchal. Cain made sacrifice of things from the earth like the matriarchal societies did and Abel makes animal sacrifice like the patriarchal societies do.

Blaming "original sin" on Eve is also probably an indication of this change.

Matriarchal societies are not all that gentle either (Cain killed Abel, according to the story) Some of the AmerIndian tribes were matriarchal and had human sacrifices.

15. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80660 by Corky on October 22, 2007 at 2:24 pm

More drivel from the fundies. It's the same old, same old, blame atheism for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. etc. Downplay the hundreds of millions killed by Christianity to 2,000 and only 18 witches killed.

All that and this wimp Shermer let's 'im get away with it without even calling him a damn liar.

16. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78868 by Corky on October 15, 2007 at 6:23 am

Oh hum… I don't know what else to do now on the RD site? I've been debating faith and religion for 6 months now here on thread – it like the day after graduation – it's over, and now I have to find something constructive to do with my life – I'm at a lost again.

You might try Delphi Forums, they're easy to navigate. Here is a pretty good one.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/roberttoo

17. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78732 by Corky on October 14, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Gadzooks, Lee, how in the world do you find anything on that huge forum?

I read enough threads over there to scare me. I didn't realize that christians were as ignorant as what I saw.

18. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78679 by Corky on October 14, 2007 at 9:17 am

What the archbishop is saying is that the atheist writers are not specifically talking about "his" religious beliefs.

Since there are about 34,800 sects of christendumb in the world, he expects 34,800 different books to be written, a book for each and every sect.

So you see, Richard Dawkins is just being too general and should be more specific in order for his book to hold any meaning for the archbishop's own sect.

19. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78515 by Corky on October 13, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Well - good-bye Mark.

Does anyone here have a suggestion about another thread with some fundie loons in it?

Perhaps a nice long one about Noah's great flood?

20. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77986 by Corky on October 11, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Face it guys. The more you mock and riducule me for not accepting the (so far as you are concerned) blindingly obvious, the more you prove the truth of my argument,

Mark,
Let me know when you find the bones of a 930 year old man.

Two associates went into the woods for a while to get away from it all and relax. One associate cared so much for the other that he promised to leave him all his worldly possessions when he passed the scene.

Well, a few days later, the heir apparent returns to civilization without his associate and tells everyone that his benefactor was spirited away in a flying saucer, leaving him alone to return.

Should we believe his story or should we send a search party to look for the body of the benefactor?

Perhaps you are aware of the story of Elijah and Elisha, however, you should give it some thought.

21. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77959 by Corky on October 11, 2007 at 9:32 am

Mark,

No need to apologize, I know what you meant but comparing my departure from religion to that of the Israelites in the Exodus account is totally meaningless. Till is correct, there would be no way in the world that the Israelites would have had any doubts whatsoever.

I know that, everyone else here knows that and I really think you know that too.

I don't know what branch of Christadelphia you are but the CDs I know don't believe in a young earth.

Mitochondrial DNA has taken us backward in time for 150,000 years of human existence on the planet. You really need an education in science.

To learn math you study a math book, to learn science you study a science book and not a holy book. If you have a question about biology, you ask a biologist and not a preacherman.

Oh I know, but once you accept that humans were already entering the iron age at the very beginning of Genesis and that the first man lived 930 years during the old stone age, well, you'll believe anything stupid just so long as it's in the bible.

In case you didn't know it, forensics have shown that people living 6,000 years ago only lived about 35 years - tops.

22. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77921 by Corky on October 11, 2007 at 5:54 am

1. How was Nebuchadrezzar to raise siege apparatus ("fort" and "buckler") against an island?

2. How was he to construct a siege ramp, made of earth poured out and stamped down by horses (producing lots of dust), against an island city surrounded by deep water?

3. How were a large number of horses to enter the gates of Tyre and run through her streets, if those gates are half a mile offshore?

It was *predicted* that Nebuchadrezzar would do this but he didn't. That part of the prediction fails. It was Alexander who conquered Tyre.

The city/fortress where the walls and towers were was on the island - in the sea.

Eze 26:17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!

And the main part of the prediction that did not come true?

Eze 26:19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

Another part that did not come true:

they shall know that I am the LORD.

23. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77793 by Corky on October 10, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Posiedon,

It doesn't say that the son of man will be in the grave or tomb for three days and three nights, it says, "in the heart of the earth".

Jesus was crucified on Friday, the "preparation day", the same day as the Passover lamb is killed and "the third day" is Sunday.

The three days and three nights are counted from the Thursday of the last supper 'til Sunday morning.

"In the heart of the earth" means that he was in their hearts (i.e., their minds). "the earth" is a biblical metaphor meaning the people.

A better question to ask would be; why did the Jewish authorities remember that he said he would be resurrected on the third day and set a guard on the tomb but his own disciples didn't remember that?

24. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77590 by Corky on October 9, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Mark,

I believe that you do mean well but you are ignoring what is right in front of you. The prophecy of Ezekiel is just the same as the prophecies of modern day prophets.

Men have not changed. The bible talks about God talking to men but so do men these days say the same thing. "God called me" etc. Yes, It is said that God called Abraham out from among his people, literally, but Mark, nothing has changed, men say the same now-a-days.

Truth be known, it was more likely that a priest from Canaan had convinced Abraham that this priest from Canaan's religion was the correct religion. A lot more likely than a god had actually talked to Abraham.

What is more likely, that a man convinced another man of a belief or that a god spoke directly to him?

God doesn't say, "Mark, Christdelphianism is the right sect of Christendom - follow it", does he? No, he does not, if I'm allowed to answer my own question, what happens is either you grew up in it or some man convinces you of it.

Ask yourself, what has changed from ancient time to today? God doesn't speak directly to men today so he didn't speak directly to them either.

Why? Because nothing has changed. There were many gods in those days that people believed in but they are all "dead" now, for the simple reason that no one believes in them anymore.

Remember in the bible about the women weeping for Tammuz? Do you think they wept for Tammuz in spite of his non-existence? No, they thought that Tammuz actually existed.

What has changed? Nothing. Women now-a-days weep for Jesus for the same reason they wept for Tammuz. Why can't you see that?

25. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77481 by Corky on October 9, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I would like to make a suggestion that may sound unlikely but could very well be true.

The real author of the Ezekiel prophecy concerning Tyre may not even be a Hebrew prophet at all but a scribe to Nebuchadrezzar.

Kings and other ancient warriors were fond of making boasts of their future planned conquests public. Old Neb may have made this boast himself and a Hebrew who could read and write, wrote it down as a prophecy from God to himself.

Consider the boast made by the "Babylonian" king, Saddam Hussein, a few years ago about the "mother of all battles" and the one about allowing the allies into Baghdad but killing them there.

See, if a religious man wanted to be "prophet" he needs some sure prophecies. Ezekiel figured that the king of Babylon could pull this one off, so he makes it a prophecy from God (to himself, of course) just like modern prophets are fond of doing.

The first chapter of Ezekiel gives it away that this Ezekiel is a religious nut, a fanatic of the first order. The wheels and wings he writes about are the religious emblems and the wheel within a wheel of the zodiac of ancient Babylon, only twisted out of shape by a twisted mind.

Religious people do the same things today. They will make predictions of what is about to "come to pass" based on what some political figure says. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but they know that "a sucker is born every minute" - P.T. Barnum.

26. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77009 by Corky on October 8, 2007 at 6:56 am

Mark,

Cockatrice (Isa. 11:8; 14:29; 59:5) Please tell me about the cockatrice.

Since you didn't answer my question about what sign Jesus said would identify his followers, I will assume you don't know.

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Do all men know that Christadelphians are Jesus' disciples? I don't, they did me wrong.

27. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76925 by Corky on October 7, 2007 at 7:32 pm

I can't believe that Mark actually used my separation from the Christadelpians as an analogy of how the Israelites after seeing all those miracles like 10 plagues on Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea etc. turned back.

Well Mark, I wasn't there and I didn't see those things but if I were there, I would certainly not rebel in the wilderness and neither would anyone else unless they were insane.

28. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76825 by Corky on October 7, 2007 at 11:43 am

I just want to see it proved that "God" exists or some kind of empirical evidence of the existence of a god. Hell, I'll settle for the proof that an angel exists or a cockatrice.

Mark, I know you are familiar with that critter, a fiery flying serpent? The result of the mating between a cock and a serpent? Well, where are they?

Honestly, I'm not picking on you Mark, (yes, I am) but you set in to prove God with the Bible. Prove that the fourth beast of Daniel is Rome and not the kingdom of Antiochus Epiphanes.

It could be either one, depending on interpretation. So, if you've thought about going there next, I'll be ready.

29. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76258 by Corky on October 5, 2007 at 9:02 am

Mark,

The thing with Nineveh

Nin·e·veh (nĭn'ə-və) Pronunciation Key
An ancient city of Assyria on the Tigris River opposite the site of present-day Mosul, Iraq. As capital of the Assyrian Empire, it enjoyed great influence and prosperity, especially under Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal (seventh century B.C.). The city was captured and destroyed by Babylonia and its allies in 612 B.C.

Didn't Johah preach to Nineveh and cause them to repent? Show us in a world history book or encyclopedia where Nineveh repented.

Did "God" have a covenant with Assyria, like with Israel, so that they repented and went back to obeying said covenant?

30. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76013 by Corky on October 4, 2007 at 10:05 am

The difficulty encountered here has a simple cause and solution.

The cause is being drawn into a discussion of the bible. Christians have been arguing over the bible for 2,000 years and it only tends to make more divisions in Christendom and nothing gets agreed on. Therefore this discussion could drag on for some time to come, say a couple of thousand years.

The discussion should go no further than proving a god exists. If no proof or evidence is forthcoming, we should assume that no god exists.

We should "hold fast" to what is "proved". Just as a man once said, "prove all things". However, people grow up with the assumption that a god exists (not proving it) and it is never questioned much less proved.

A lot of talk going on these days about there being no proof outside the bible that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. Well, that aside - since Jesus was confined to Palestine, the man that questions should be asked about is Paul.

This man's ministry was a lot longer than Jesus' and he too performed miracles (according to the bible) even raised the dead. Single-handedly converted the whole of the Roman Empire to Christianity, travelled thoughout Asia, Asia Minor, Turkey (Anatolia) Greece, Judea, Samaria, Syria and all the way to Rome - preaching and converting and performing miracles all the way.

What is there in history books at the time that mention this miracle worker? Nothing, nada, zip, zero, not even Josephus mentions him.

Shouldn't he have been at least as famous as Apollonius of Tyana? Who, incidentally lived at exactly the same time, was schooled at Tarsus (where Paul was from), travelled to all the same places as Paul and performed miracles and by a strange coincidence - founded a religious group at Corinth. Nah . . . couldn't have been the same man . . . could it?

Anyway, where is Paul of Tarsus in history?

31. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #74751 by Corky on September 30, 2007 at 9:09 am

Okay guys?, Mark?, back at it. Don't leave me up in the air here like a serial on TV when the season ends. I'm in suspense about those fulfilled prophecies.

I would like to know about the fulfillment of the prophecy about Jesus in Psa. 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Maybe old Celsus the Epicurean philosopher was correct about the Roman soldier and Jesus' mother?

But it has to refer to Jesus, right? Because David's mother did not conceive David in sin, so . . .?

32. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #72675 by Corky on September 22, 2007 at 8:31 am