1. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112165 by Martin on January 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Dear Mr. Scales,

Thank you for your contributions. People like you are a great example to all of us. I hope your next operation will go well, and that you will recover soon.

Best wishes from The Netherlands,
Martin

2. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46397 by Martin on May 31, 2007 at 5:44 am

Comment #46346 by Hugo:

I get SQL errors in the article on this page

And can't see the movie, it seems that it is only visible in the US, ...

3. The root of all evil?

Comment #43707 by Martin on May 22, 2007 at 10:31 am

chadvader123,

I've reread the story once more... So the King is the mean man? I was told the guy becoming King in the story (the one wanting to have his enemies killed) was "the Lord". Nowhere does it say this guy's a "mean man", and nowhere is the killing condemned. It's how you want to read it I suppose.

4. The root of all evil?

Comment #43695 by Martin on May 22, 2007 at 10:07 am

altruism (comment #43691):

Nothing Dawkins has said is as offensively shocking as some of the content of the Old Testament. The stuff in there is REALLY shocking, and all the more so because it is held up by millions as the source of their morality!

5. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe

Comment #40963 by Martin on May 15, 2007 at 9:00 am

There's a lot of "evidence" and "truth" for sale in their webshop ... (guess not)

6. Statement of Concern about Impact of AIG's Creation 'Museum'

Comment #40953 by Martin on May 15, 2007 at 8:44 am

Comment #40945 by Rtambree:

I give it another 250 years

7. Unbelievable: That's what religion is, says Christopher Hitchens in his profoundly skeptical manifesto

Comment #40951 by Martin on May 15, 2007 at 8:39 am

I ordered the book. Can't wait to read it.

8. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28359 by Martin on March 29, 2007 at 12:25 am

Good news. Congratulations!

9. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25165 by Martin on March 10, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I recieved robives' copy of The Dawkins Delusion (see Comment #24051). I read it and here are my thoughts.

It's a tiny book, only 78 pages (4 chapters).

Introduction.
McGrath wonders cynically: Why is The God Delusion necessary? In the 60's we thought God would have died by now, but he did not. Two things changed since the 60's:
1. religion has made a comeback
2. McGrath became a Christian
What is the point he wants to make here? Does a comeback of religion make it more or less true? Does the fact that McGrath became a Christian make it more true?

Page ix: McGrath talks about diehard atheists having an unbending faith. Wrong. Atheism is as much a faith as baldness is a hair color.

Page xi: as usual, the believer is accusing it's opponent of bad things like dogmatist, and its work a self-contradictory (by quoting a reviewer of Prospect Magazine). Exactly these negative terms are true for the believers and their (holy) book the bible. I know of no book in the entire universe that is so self-contradictory as the bible. That's what believers do all the time: if they want to make religion look good, they make it look scientific (Kent Hovind took the "scientific" approach). But if they want to make non-religious phenomena look bad, they make it look like a religion ("Atheism is a faith", "Darwinism is an ideology", "Dawkins is a dogmatist", etc.). I suspect, deep inside they actually know that religion is something inferior, and they secretly stand in awe towards science.

After reading the introduction, I'm expecting evidence for God (which Dawkins may not take as valid evidence, according to McGrath, because Dawkins is a dogmatist, but that will convince me as an open-minded atheist). I'm expecting very solid counter-arguments for every argument Richard Dawkins used in The God Delusion. Let's continue with chapter 1.

Chapter 1
In lectures, McGrath sets out Dawkins' views on religion, and then gives an evidence-based rebuttal, point by point. Hmmm... expectations are rising ... But regrettably, there is no evidence in this chapter.

A person at a lecture is angry at McGrath, because McGrath made him lose his atheistic faith. Wrong again Alister: baldness is not a hair color, and atheism is not a religion. It doesn't matter if an attendant of your lecture (even a former atheist) says it is a belief. It is not. It is lack of belief. If anyone starts worshipping Dawkins as a god, he's wrong, and I'm certain Richard Dawkins would disapprove of that as well.

In this chapter, McGrath, again, makes the mistake of attributing dogma to secularism. He says that bringing up your children in a secular way, means forcing down secular dogma's down their throats. Baldness ... hair color ... A very important point in The God Delusion is that dogma is a bad thing. McGrath is missing the point again, and I'm only on page 4.

In the paragraph Arguments for God's Existence, McGrath is not coming up with any new argument. He just explains the difference between arguments that are a posteriori demonstrations of coherence of faith and observation, and arguments that are a priori proof, and says Dawkins has misinterpreted one for the other. A posteriori demonstration or a priori proof, it doesn't matter, Aquinas' arguments do not change the improbability of God. McGrath misses the point.

Page 9: What explains the explainer? To McGrath the probability of a grand unified theory is like the probability of God. Isn't he, in a way, admitting that God is just a man-made theory, like the grand-unified-theory? Looks like it: man made (the) God (hypothesis). McGrath is comparing an explanation (a theory) to a designer (a highly complex, living, physically existing being, that designs and creates other highly complex, living, physically existing beings, and must itself (because of its complexity) have been created by an even more complex designer). Is he kidding us? He can't be serious. This argument is simply hilarious. And again, McGrath has no better alternative.

Page 10-12: At first site, this looks like a smart move of McGrath: instead of believing in the God of the gaps, he sees God as the explanation of the capacity of science. That smart, because McGrath is aware that the gaps are getting smaller by the day, and the capacity of science grows equally fast. By redefining God this way, God is not vanishing inside the ever shrinking gaps, but God grows as science's capacity grows. Just like McGrath himself feeds on the success of Dawkins (by using his name in the title of the book), God will profit from the success of science. Smart, but not smart enough. What's the justification for this redefinition? McGrath does not tell us.

Chapter 2
The long discussion on whether science will be able to explain everything or not leads us nowhere. Perhaps McGrath still has hopes for gaps, although he said he did not believe in a God of the gaps (see above)? (Again the atheist Gould is mentioned in an attempt to divide and conquer the atheist scientists.)

And here we go again: Hitler and Stalin were atheists etc. etc. Stalin was, Hitler wasn't (he was a Catholic). Even if they were atheists, they did not commit their crimes in the name of atheism. Atheism is not an ideology, just like baldness is not a hair color. It doesn't take a professor to make up (or imitate) this silly argument over and over again, yet professor McGrath is eager enough to do so.

Page 27: Again, McGrath blames Richard Dawkins of showing disregard for evidence. What evidence? Give me an example of any evidence for anything that Richard Dawkins has disregarded. Richard Dawkins, as far as I know, has repeatedly written en told us in his documentaries, that the beauty of science is that it's growing, and theories can be proven wrong by new evidence. He calls that the beauty of science, while McGrath accuses him of dogmatism and disregarding evidence over and over again.

Finished Chapter 2. No new arguments, no counter-arguments for the arguments in TGD, no evidence as promised in the introduction and chapter 1. This "evidence", is it just for lectures, of will we encounter any in this book?

Chapter 3
Page 28: Dawkins uses the teapot to demonstrate that not being able to disprove a phenomenon does not mean that it is justified to believe in it. McGrath ridicules it, relying on the ignorance of his readers (I suspect he believes his readers/fans not to actually will have read The God Delusion).

Page 29: Again McGrath blames the non-religious for what he should blame the religious for: ideology based on a desire for something. It's like saying: "See how bad these atheists are, they're just as bad as the religious." Here, we see McGrath ridiculing the atheists by comparing them to religious people. I find that strange for someone who is religious himself.

Page 30: On the origins of belief, McGrath finds the by-product hypothesis speculative. So do I. And so does Dawkins himself. Dawkins does not give proof for this, nor does he claim to have it.

The rest of chapter 3 is a lot of crap about being religious and/or (not) believing in God (are these separate things?), proposition subsystems and implicational subsystems, etc, which make the subject sound important but o so fuzzy. Dawkins did not address all this fuzzy stuff, says McGrath, and his book is therefore bad. I think Dawkins couldn't possibly have addressed all this fuzzy "logic", and write one book of 400 pages. It would have been a library full of books, addressing everyone's personal, vague, self-made belief. McGrath accuses Dawkins of not defining religion unambiguously, but McGrath himself (the theologian expert) cannot either. He stops right after repeatedly saying things like "it is an important question", "it needs a psychological answer", …

Page 41: McGrath seems to never get tired of calling atheism a belief system … again … (sigh). It's still not clear to me why religion isn't a virus of the mind. What is McGrath's argument? He merely says that if the world-view of religion is a virus, than every world-view is a virus, and therefore the virus does not exist. In other words: if religion is a virus, then the lack of religion is a virus, which cannot be true, so there is no virus?

Page 42: McGrath abuses the quote "Tread softly because you tread on my memes", in which he suggests "my" relates to Richard Dawkins (the inventor of the meme). However, I thought "my" (in de context of Dawkins' book) relates to the religious, whom we should approach softly, to not tread on their memes (being their religion).

Page 43: McGrath loved "The Selfish Gene", in which memes were presented first. This book was published in 1976. We never heard McGrath complain about memes. Until now. Until has faith is on the line. Now he start asking childish questions like "has anyone actually seen these things?", ridiculing the whole idea. Suspicious, and 30 years late, McGrath.

Chapter 4.
Page 46: "Come to think of it, I don't believe in a God like that either". Yes you do! You just forgot you cherry-picked all the nice things from the bible, leaving all the bad characteristics of God behind. Dawkins is merely summing up the characteristics of God from the old testament, and he's right. It's YOUR holy book McGrath, not Dawkins. Do us a favour and read the bible as critically as you did TGD. Than we'll talk about love …

Page 47: McGrath is a cherry-picking Christian believing in Jesus of the new Testament (which is only about 25% of the bible), forgetting that Jesus said he came to bring hatred, and that he would slay anyone who did not believe in him.

Page 48: And again … "atheist ideology". Baldness … hair colour. Atheism is not an ideology that wants to eliminate religious people. The fact that atheist Soviets did so, does not make atheism an ideology that wants to eliminate religious people. What holy dogmatic book of atheism states we should? I know a book, however, that is available in every Christian home, called the Holy Bible, that DOES contain such texts aimed at non-believers, homosexuals, etc. McGrath is (again) making atheism look bad by comparing it to religion. What is wrong, is dogma. Religious dogma, but also non-religious dogma. An atheist is not by definition a dogmatist. A dogmatist could be an atheist, but a dogmatist could also wear a moustache. Not all moustache wearing men are dogmatists. Why is it so hard to believe for believers that non-believers lack a common ideology? Of course there are bad atheists, but not because they're atheists (or wear a moustache).

Page 49: "Dawkins is in denial of the darker side of atheism." What IS this darker side of ATHEISM? McGrath does not, and cannot point out one single darker side of atheism. See my remarks above.

Page 52 (bottom) / 53 (top). McGrath accuses Dawkins of gross simplifications, but in the next sentence does grossly simplify the world himself. To McGrath there are either religious people, or fanatics and atheist fundamentalists.

Page 53: Jesus was not an out-group hostile person? McGrath could be right about that, but since Jesus was probably not an historical figure, it is irrelevant. James and Paul had a very deep conflict over this. James (said to be Jesus' brother) was out-group hostile, and wanted to keep the laws of Moses very strictly. Paul wasn't that hostile to out-groups. In the bible, Paul calls James and his followers dogs (Philippians 3:2). In Galatians 1 Paul writes an angry letter to the Galatians that have been listening to James an his followers. Read "The Bible Against Itself" by Randel McCraw Helms.

My overall impression.
McGrath simply refuses to understand Dawkins, because he has its own religious agenda. Keeps repeating erroneous arguments like atheism is a belief/an ideology, allowing for him to call atheists dogmatists. He comes up with zero new arguments, and does not present counter-arguments for Richard Dawkins' arguments. This book is not a sufficient answer for the offended religious who actually read TGD, but only for those religious that heard of TGD and were offended a priori. Being ignorant about the actual content of TGD, the latter might have the feeling McGrath defended their world-view sufficiently, but I think he did a bad job.

--

I'd send it to the next "admirer" of McWrath. Send a PM if interested, anyone! Otherwise I'll return it to robives.

10. Even Stephven: Islam vs. Christianity

Comment #24606 by Martin on March 7, 2007 at 2:27 pm

AtheistAcolyte, it's not only depressing, but it scares me. I have kids. They use the internet a lot for their homework. I always tell them to be critical in what to believe and what not, but websites like these may look genuine to gullable people (which they are, because they're just kids). Take a look at http://richarddawkins.net/article,698,Conservapedia-v-Wikipedia,BBC-Radio-4-PZ-Myers for more info on this subject.

11. Even Stephven: Islam vs. Christianity

Comment #24558 by Martin on March 7, 2007 at 8:38 am

Hi-la-ri-ous!

I could use a good laugh, by the way. I was becoming pretty depressed after looking at the http://www.conservapedia.com and http://creationwiki.org to which my attention was drawn by a news site. Pretty disturbing, anti-evolution, homophobic, truth distorting stuff. Well, plain lies actually ...

12. Ayaan Hirsi Ali Feature

Comment #24327 by Martin on March 6, 2007 at 2:56 am

If I had achieved 10% of what Ayaan has done with her life considering her starting point, and if I had a fraction of her courage, I would ...

13. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24160 by Martin on March 5, 2007 at 5:17 am

I got robives' (see comment 21) copy. As soon as I finish it, I'll send it to the next "admirer" of McWrath. Send a PM if interested, anyone!

By the way, thanks robives.

14. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21197 by Martin on February 8, 2007 at 2:05 am

Comment #21144 by Zaphod:

"My fictional book is actually true because I say it is" shouts delusional idiot.

15. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21196 by Martin on February 8, 2007 at 2:01 am

Followers of creationism believe in the literal truth of the Genesis account in the Bible that God created the world in six days. Bishop Adoyo believes the world was created 12,000 years ago, with man appearing 6,000 years later. He says each biblical day was equivalent to 1,000 Earth years.

16. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20927 by Martin on February 7, 2007 at 3:26 am

By Alister McGrath

17. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20921 by Martin on February 7, 2007 at 3:00 am

Atheists have bad PR? I think this broadcast was bad PR! Bad PR for that "Christian" nation, but most of all for CNN!

18. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #19360 by Martin on January 26, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at teh bottom of it too? (I think this one was from Douglas Adams).

Isn't it enough to see that a painting is beautiful without having to believe it was inspired by a non-existing invisible guy in the sky?

19. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17755 by Martin on January 15, 2007 at 11:40 pm

On something as simple as the age of the earth? I can do the math, the lineage provided in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 that give the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage, while Luke gave the family tree of Mary)

20. Lil' Markie live, part 2

Comment #17657 by Martin on January 15, 2007 at 10:20 am

Sad ...

21. Creationism Song

Comment #17656 by Martin on January 15, 2007 at 10:17 am

I didn't watch it. I'm afraid I will have to throw up. I just ate ...

22. You come up here and say that, Dawkins!

Comment #17346 by Martin on January 13, 2007 at 1:59 am

Okay, NOW I understand the biblical story of 2 Kings 2:24 where 42 children are ripped to pieces by two bears, all because they called Elija a baldy. God is also bald!

23. The Nodder

Comment #16765 by Martin on January 8, 2007 at 2:32 pm

If I didn't know any better, I'd say your neck thing must be a punishment from God for reading such a Godless book ;)
Get well soon Steven!

24. God-less

Comment #16449 by Martin on January 6, 2007 at 3:57 pm

One of the bestselling books of 2006 was Richard Dawkins's combative The God Delusion, a frontal assault on belief. Sam Harris's tiny but fierce Letter to a Christian Nation blasted American devotionalism. From the grave (certainly not from beyond it, he would have insisted), Carl Sagan offered The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. It's an updated version of the Gifford Lectures he gave in 1985, the same series that produced William James's mightily influential The Varieties of Religious Experience. In God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger has undertaken -- bravely, or perhaps foolishly -- to prove the heretofore unprovable.

One of the anticipated books of the spring is already a bestseller in France, philosopher Michel Onfray's The Atheist Manifesto, an equal-opportunity attack on Christianity, Islam and Judaism. And, a recent profile of intellectual gadfly and hit man Christopher Hitchens in The New Yorker tells us that the prolific polymath is writing God Is Not Great. Hitchens doesn't much like any religion, but the title obviously aims the work squarely at Islam, the religion he feels his view of the world most threatened by.

25. General Synod's Life of Christ

Comment #16437 by Martin on January 6, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Thanks, scottishgeologist, for the post. Great one!

26. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14540 by Martin on December 23, 2006 at 4:06 am

Comment #14525 by Aussie:
"The other issue is that Jesus had an older brother James so Mary could hardly have been a virgin when Jesus was conceived as there is no suggestion that James was also a virgin birth."

I knew he had a brother called James. But the virgin birth advocates claim that James was Jezus' halfbrother (a son of Joseph from an earlier marriage, but not of Mary), or that James was younger than Jesus. The first claim is easily debunked: if James really is Jesus' halfbrother, than Joseph MUST be Jesus' father (instead of God). If not, James would not be Jesus' brother at all.

27. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14458 by Martin on December 22, 2006 at 2:23 pm

BillySands, you're right. I've looked it up, and it's actually in the bible.

Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote:
Jesus either had an earthly father, or Jesus was a woman.

Matthew wrote:
1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15 Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

He definitely had an earthly father: Joseph, son of ... son of David ... son of Abraham.

Nevertheless, I'd like it if anyone could enlighten me (see comment #14449)

28. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14449 by Martin on December 22, 2006 at 1:34 pm

A very interesting article indeed. After I finished it one question popped up, and I haven't figured out the answer.

In the article Prof. Dawkins wrote:
A human female has no Y-chromosomes. Every baby produced by selling would have to be XX and therefore female.

I was wondering, how about woman that have a genetic condition called chromosomal mosaicism? I once read an article about a female German athlete having XXY chromosome made-up cells. I'm just a layman, and I wonder if women with chromosomal mosaicism could have a son by selfing? I'd probably be drawing the wrong conclusion in thinking she could, so could anyone enlighten me?

29. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13826 by Martin on December 19, 2006 at 2:44 pm

Funny ...

Very often, when religious advocates try to make atheism look bad, they call it a religion. (This is what Liddle does in the beginning of the documentary.)
And very often, when they to make religion look superiour, they try to make it look "scientific" (Kent Hovind a good example).
Isn't that paradoxical?

Don't they actually implicitly admit religion is something silly, and science is great?

30. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #10786 by Martin on November 29, 2006 at 7:54 am

Back on page 11, Paul creber asked for evidence of the virgin birth.
What evidence did David Robertson come up with?
"The testimony of the bible"


As soon as a theist resorts to "It's in the bible" they have lost the argument.

Being the most generous possible, the bible is open to interpretation. Therefore it can say almost anything you want it to say making it useless as a evidence of anything.

As proof of the existence of fairies, I point you to the testimony of Peter Pan.

31. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #10759 by Martin on November 29, 2006 at 5:22 am

No - he did not. He answered yes when he was asked did he think he would have to account to God for what he had done in Iraq. There is a big difference. And again I would prefer a politician who thought he was accountable to God for his actions than one who did not (aka Hitler and Mao)


George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and most of the founding fathers of the US were all great politicians and they were almost all Deists. In other words they were not accountable to god.

I'm sure if I started digging I could find other important leaders that were either deists or agnostic or atheist.

Being an atheist doesn't stop one being a tyrant. It just makes it harder to justify since you can't use "god told me" as your excuse.

32. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #10744 by Martin on November 29, 2006 at 4:37 am

I love the ways you guys do history. You just kind of make it up as you go along! I hope that your science is better! The Reformation came about because of a variety of factors - the most significant being the discovery of the message of the Bible, its printing etc. I think you will find that the Crusades did not take place in the 16th century.


Pot calling the kettle black I think. You just make your faith/evidence etc up as you go along.

I am perfectly aware that the Crusades did not happen in the 16th century. They occured between the 11th and 13th centuries.

In an age without instant mass communication things take time, and my point was that the crusades planted the seeds of the change, which was to come later, starting in the 14th century and culminating in the reformations of the 15th and early 16th century. The fact that your chose to ignore the substantive parts of my argument or possibly failed to see it behind the blinker of your faith only further supports Pene's belief that you are a bully and attempting to brown beat me into submission without even dealing with my arguments.


Now the logic here is going all over the place. I am a Christian because I was brought up in a Christian society. Therefore you must be a Christian as well. And everyone else brought up in the US or Britain. Doesn't quite work doe[s]


No my logic is perfectly sound. And I agree that to a point I am a Christian. Like so many others for years I ticked the "christian" box on the census form because I just couldn't think of anything else, although I certainly didn't believe in god even then. It's the group hug fallacy as I like to call it. Everyone wants to be in a group. It just took me a while to actually realise that there was a group out there that much better matched my values and then I happily cast off the old group. I hold to my reason in spite of the indoctrination attempts by the church. I think that that makes my position stronger than yours. I have to actively chose to move against the flow, you can just drift with the rest of the brainwashed lemmings. Admittedly, you are less of a lemming, and more of a lemming pusher, the person that stands at the edge of the cliff and encourages the lemmings to jump off.


This is interesting - another atheist myth! I regulary vist Sweden. It is not 90% atheist. Up until 2000 it had a State established church - which the vast majority of people still belong to. I think you are confuisng atheism with socialism.


While 90% is certainly the highest value ever recorded, the general consensus over the years is that sweden is at least 70% atheist:


According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they did not believe in "a personal God." According to Greeley (2003), 46% of Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as "atheist." According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe in a "personal God." According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God.


The use the existence of a state church and is a logical fallacy. By your argument the US should be the most atheist country in the world, since it has constitutionally no state church. In fact, I'm glad you raised the point that they had a state church. It was removed because it wasn't needed nor was it right to have one any more.

People might belong to the state church, but that doesn't mean they believe. It's the group hug fallacy again.

33. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #10485 by Martin on November 28, 2006 at 7:56 am

Quite remarkable view of history which totally ignores the Reformation and the development of the sciences that took place after the church returned to biblical teaching. But as I have found out the mickey mouse atheist version of history is untouchable to its devotees!


I'd not ignored the Reformation (which one in particular, protestant or catholic?) The Reformation, despite being basically religious infighting, actually marked the beginning of the end of the Dark Ages for me. Once people started being able to read the texts they were supposed to believe in things could start to be questioned. Unfortunately the enlightenment this brought, and the openness and example that allowed (however slightly) the status quo to be questioned marked the beginnings of the rennaisance and the move towards a more rational world that was dominated by a thirst for knowledge and less of the dogma that religion is famous for.

So while religion brought about the horror, relgion also brought about its end. In a way, I suspect the refomation was probably triggered by the crusades. All those knights and squires coming back with soap and other amazing wonders from the arab world which at the time was probably the most educated society in the world, realising that there was something better out there, despite the arabs being heretics. I wonder just how much the church might have worried about it's survival when the common people realised that a different religion was providing a much better world for it's followers. The church had to change or it would go under. So it it turned to in fighting and did what it always does, re-write what it believes to fit in with the times. Seems the word of god isn't quite as immovable (or perfect) as one might believe.


I guess it must be so simple to live in a fundamentalist world where you know everything about everyone. My earliest memories are not about Christ, I was not baptised as a child and for many years Christ was not part of my life. But hey, you're an atheist, so why let facts get in the way of a good rant! You remind me of the Financial Times journalist who came to my church to write an article on religion. Afterwarards he came for a meal and said to the various people assembled there - 'of course you are all religious because you were brought up that way'. Of the 8 people in the room not one of them was brought up in the church. It kind of blew his theory apart.


Depends on what you consider brought up in the church doesn't it. You cannot escape religion in our current world. It's insidious. Therefore you were brought up "in the church" whether you were spoon fed it by your parents or not. We are, much to my irritation, a Christian society. If you had been raised in a hindu or islamic society and you turned to christianity without having really ever heard anything about it before, then I'd be impressed by your claim.


"ow else do you explain so many religions all claiming to be right?"

You are right-there is a natural tendency towards religion because every human being is born with a sense of God. The different religions are explained by humanity's stupidity and sinfullness and by those who wish to exploit that for their own power and advancement.


Blinded by faith. Humans aren't born with a sense of God! They are born with a tendency to believe in the supernatural. I could just as well argue that all Greeks were born with a sense of olympus and that's why they all believed in their gods. Your statement is meaningless.

My statement on the other hand isn't clouded by religion and should be acceptable even to you, if you sufficient honest to accept it. God is super natural, even in your definition of him/her/it; s/he is above nature, hence super natural.

So yes, we agree, humans are born with a tendency to believe in the supernatural. Just what form that belief (if at all) takes is up to society.


"Have you read the so-called holy books of all the other religions?"

Yes - of all the major ones.


Well, you're one ahead of me then. I've only really read the bible and it's a load of drivel. When I've read the others I might follow their religion, but I doubt it. In either case your god is a load of hot air.


"ou are stamping your frame of reference on something you obviously don't understand. You are so blinded by your belief you cannot imagine how easy it is not to believe. Shame really, you are missing out on so much."

Yes - I thinkit is very easy not to believe.


Haha.. how ignorant you really are, and hypocritical. To use your own phrase "I guess it must be so simple to live in a fundamentalist world where you know everything about everyone."

It's much easier to excuse everything with "god did it" or explain away everything with "god works in mysterious ways". Basically that is the cop out answer. Not believing means we actually need to explain things, to find the true answers, instead of poking our heads in the sand.

My life would be so simpler if I would just accept that at the end of my life I can just ask for forgiveness and go to heaven.



"he only way we will ever get world peace is by eliminating religion as a power entirely."

Sweet really. Your faith, without a shred of evidence, is untried and untested. The only societies that have tried to live without religion have been real bringers of world peace - Stalins Russia, Mao's China, Pol POts Kampuchea (oh - but I forgot they were not real atheists - they were religious people in disguise!).


Your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance. Those societies didn't try to live without religion, the absence of religion was imposed on them. Religion never died out in those states it just went underground. I'd never try to forcably remove religion. I want people to wake up and shed the shackles off themselves.

As proof that I am right and that religion is no bar to a peaceful society, look at the scandinavian countries, bordering on 90% atheist those countries have some of the lowest crime rates and highest standards of living in the western worlds. Whereas the more religious a country gets the higher the crime rate with the USA on religious nut case end of the spectrum.

This is reflected the world over, the more religious a country the more crime there is and if it's not crime it's because the society as a whole ignores human rights because it's not compatible with their religion.


By the way - you and a couple of others made the accusation that my last article misrepresented and misunderstood Dawkins ch.1. I asked specifically for you to point out where I had done that. There has been no reply. Was this just a rhetorical statement? Or do you have an answer? I would appreciate it.

I was too busy countering your other non-sense. When I've finished "The Blind Watchmaker" I'll go back and dissect your article. I suspect I've given you enough to deal with in this reply to keep you busy (or at least shaking your head) for a while.

34. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #10160 by Martin on November 27, 2006 at 8:01 am

"Atheism is not about anything"

I think there is a sense in which we could agree on that one!


Yes, and let's remember that the introduction of the number 0 a mere few centuries ago (At least in Christian dominated Europe) revolutionised maths and consequentially science as a whole.

Just remember that the last time the Church had the last say in Europe is the time we call The Dark Ages. Five hundred years of misery, witch-hunts inquisitions, crusades and almost zero scientific advancement. That is the world you theists aspire to, even if you don't realise it yourself. 500 years of answering "God did it" to every unexplained phenomena.


Now what is your empirical evidence for suggesting that atheism is the default state? It seems to me that the evidence from every human society is precisely the opposite. Atheism is something that has to be taught and indoctrinated into people. I don't think I have met anyone who was born an atheist.

I certainly haven't met anyone who was born a Christian. I am certain you weren't born a Christian. Your earliest memories are about Christ though.. and why not.. your mum told you about him while you were a still a baby... you went to church only a few months old to have some old fart try to drown you... Christ has been part of your life because of your parents and surroundings. You were brainwashed, lovingly, caringly with teh best instentions, but you were brainwashed all the same, indoctrination. If you'd grown up isolated and alone.. you'd not be a christian. You might well believe that God was the entity that lit your isolation booth and provided the food.

You also completely ignored my qualifier, so much so that you left it out of your reply. I claimed that the belief in the supernatural might come naturally. And that would certainly explain why there are so many religions. Everyone is born an atheist, but with the natural tendency to the belief in the supernatural and it is nurture that gives that tendency room to unfold, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or cargo cults. How else do you explain so many religions all claiming to be right?

Only your arrogant presumption makes you believe that your god is the correct one. Have you read the so-called holy books of all the other religions? Have you evaluated all their evidence, made sure that their evidence isn't better than the evidence for your super fairy? If you haven't how can you be sure... except by "feelings"? I have it easier. I've shaken off my belief in the supernatural and can therefore rule out all those super-cctv cameras in the sky or wherever.

Because all the arguements for god, regardless of the religion tend to follow the same pattern.

1) Your parents believed it
2) It says so in a book
3) You can never see/hear/touch/interact with the deity.


A recent study on the rise of religion in Europe actually made the point that atheism and secularism can only survive as it makes converts from the religious.


Fascinating. Of course, most atheists and agnostics I know are atheists as far back as they can remember. My parents tried to teach me religion and I went to a Christian school for 5 years (chapel every day) and I'd say I'm atheist despite religions best efforts to brainwash me, and most atheists I know are the same.

The only thing I enjoyed was some of the music. Handel's Messiah is an excellent piece. Of course inspiration music has been used throughout the ages to compel, encourage and enthral, Hitler loved inspirational music to rally his crowds. Doesn't mean the music isn't beautiful or wonderful though, after all... it was meant to be, depiste it's intended purpose.

The most vocal atheists (other than Dawkins et al) are the former devout theists. Mostly because they've realised just how much of their lives and money was wasted following a lie, and they want to spare others the same fate.


"Atheism is the absence of belief."

Nope. Atheists have a whole set of beliefs which they cannot prove. The belief that there is only the material. The belief that there is no God.


You are stamping your frame of reference on something you obviously don't understand. You are so blinded by your belief you cannot imagine how easy it is not to believe. Shame really, you are missing out on so much.


Martin once again you are just stating caricatures and lies. Let me make it quite simple for you. As a Christian I believe that every human being is created in the image of God. I do not believe that any one race is inherently superior to another or better evolved. Therefore I am obligated to treat every human being with dignity and respect – irresepective of what they belief. In that sense Christianity is far more egalitarian than the social darwianism that Darwinism would logically demand.


The most important phrase in your reply is "I do not believe...". But we are not talking about you. I can accept that you are tolerant, understanding and don't discriminate. The problem is that 90% of your theist fellows aren't. Your views are probably a lot closer to the humanist world view than most of your fellow god-botherers. How many countries and societies are currently at war because of their view of god is not quite the same as their neighbours? Ireland, Iran, Turkey/N.Iraq, Iraq, Christan West vs Muslim East, Rowanda, Yugoslavia. All those conflicts exist because people are lumped into groups created by their religions.

The only way we will ever get world peace is by eliminating religion as a power entirely. Of course in theory a single religion could do the same thing, but it's been trying that for thousands of years mostly by use of the sword, but it can't even keep it's own house in order, after all, why are there so many Christian sects? Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Greek Orthodox to name but the most prominent.


"So yes, the virgin birth could happen, but the chance of it being god that did it was almost nil."
Now you are getting nearer the question. It is not whether the Virgin birth could happen (which you allow for) but whether it did.


Yes... and all the evidence i.e. human biology, human nature, human failing, psychological knowledge, societal knowledge etc clearly indicate that God wasn't involved. Given what we know of the scientific knowledge of the time (mostly thanks to the greeks, romans and egyptions, none of whom were corrupted by your god at the time and who actually kept proper records) it is much more likely for the people at the time to believe some wonder fairy did it than to see the other possibilities. The fact that you would willingly lower yourself to their level of understanding so that you might share their misguided beliefs is beyond any rational person's comprehension, and certainly beyond mine.

I see it this way.

You are standing on the side of a fast moving road (where the drivers cannot see you), trying to get to the other side. Your fastest course of action is to move to the traffic lights and cross there. You have a 99% chance of surviving. You could just rush across the road dodging cars and let's call that an 75% chance of survival. You could just run across the road at full tilt, and hope no one hits you... 10% chance of surving.

Religion sees all these options... then chooses to blind-fold itself and walk slowly across the road, because a 2000 year old book said it was the way to do it.

Why? Why do theists disregard all the evidence and fasten their views on the one probability that has the absolute lowest chance of being right? I just don't understand it. Maybe I never will. The more you try to defend your outrageous position though the more I fail to understand you.

35. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10049 by Martin on November 27, 2006 at 1:04 am

My argument is that unlike Judeo-Christian America, secular societies—generally meaning those of Western Europe—lose their will to survive (by not reproducing), and stand for nothing (they were largely morally worthless in the Cold War against Communism and are worthless or worse in helping to keep Israel alive against Muslims who vow to exterminate the Jewish state.)

Well, as a European I take offence at Prager's almost Nazi-like pro-American nationalism.

Has Prager not considered the fact that Europeans, not blinded by religious non-sense like his contemporaries, might not be having as many children because we see the world as already over populated? Actually I suspect it has more to do with cost of living than anything else.

Also Europeans correctly cringe in horror at the unqualified support the US provides Israel, when Israel itself is the source of the problem in the middle east? While I don't think Israel should be wiped off the face of the map like the Muslim nuts, I also don't think unequivocal support of Israel and it's almost terrorist-like actions against the Palestinians and Lebanese is going to help the situation either.

One final point for Mr Prager... Europeans know well and truly what it was like to have the church in charge...it was called The Dark Ages. 500 years of ignorance and scientific stagnation, witch hunts and inquisitions, crusades and almost non-stop war.

36. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #9613 by Martin on November 25, 2006 at 9:09 am

Nope. Wrong. Atheism is about exclusion. Because you all 'know' you are right. Biblical Christianity is about acceptance of every single human being as a human being. That is why the fight against racism was lead by religious people and it is also why one the biggest obstacles they had to face was social Darwinianism which most certainly does not teach the equality of all human beings.


Atheism is not about anything... Atheism is the default state. I'd argue that everyone is born atheist, i'd give as proof that children need to be told about god and isolated communites without contact with christian brainwashers don't believe in your god at all, so it's certainly not an intrinsic human condition. The belief in the supernatural might be though, go luck up cargo cults and all the various other things that spring up.

Atheism is the absence of belief. You don't call an empty lot exclusionist because there's nothing built on it. The people on these boards just refuse to give the church planning permission for their cathedral because they don't make a good case. Either that.. or they'd demolished the hypothetical cathedral because it was wasting space they could use for better things.

The problem is... when religion starts building on the lot there's mighty little space for anything else, it tries to dictate what can be built there.

Christianity is about acceptance of every single human being as a human being.

Sophistry. You forgot to add the qualifier that makes the sentence true... Christianity is about acceptance of every single human being as a human being as long as they are christian.! Religion is the exclusive club.

Virgin birth – but it is just as wrong to state that it did not happen because it COULD not happen.

Ha ha ha... we resort to the god-botherer's favourite misrepresentation. I can prove mathematically that when I shoot a ball through a goal the ball could defract and head off at 45 degress to the way it entered. That doesn't make it likely.

It took thousands of years of advancement in science for us to be able to use IVF treatment and allow a woman to give birth. I'd still argue that it's not a virgin birth because it still needs sperm from somewhere.

So yes, the virgin birth could happen, but the chance of it being god that did it was almost nil.

Instead.. how about these much more likely explanations:

First how do you prove virginity?

1) The woman says so.
2) Her family say so.
3) You examine the hymen to see if it's torn.

So.. what are the possibilities then:

1) She's lying. Pre-maritial sex is frowned upon, so telling the truth is not a good idea. Or maybe she's an attention seeker. Maybe mary was sleeping with the milkman and didn't want joseph to know.

2) They are lying. It was much easier to marry off a virgin "unspoilt" woman in those days than one who wasn't. Pre-marital sex having been "banned" by religion.

3) There have been enough documented cases of a hymen not tearing during intercourse to indicate that it's possible to have sex without it tearing.

4) Joseph and mary could have had a wild petting session and sperm could have slipped into the vagina and inseminated her, cases are known and sperm can survive for quite a while. No inter-course happend, but she's still pregnant. Given the amount of wive's tales people believe even today, like you can't get pregnant the first time, or you can't if you do it doggy.. or whatever.. it's not hard to see that Joseph might say "but we didn't have intercourse.. who have you been sleeping with?". Frightened mary, scared of being stonned to death for adultary says "no one, it was god!". She might as well have said the tooth fairy or satan.

Now an honest man would have to admit that all of those have a much higher probability of being true than the evasive "god did it" version. If i have the choice between half a dozen likely explinations and one very unlikely explination I'd choose the likely one, because that's what sane people do.

37. Public school teacher tells class: 'You belong in hell'

Comment #9259 by Martin on November 24, 2006 at 9:20 am

(which often reveres the bible as a highly accurate source for historical knowledge).

Read Robin Lane Fox's Truth and Fiction in the Bible and then try to say that sentence with a straight face.

38. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9219 by Martin on November 24, 2006 at 6:41 am

Nice article, well articulated, eloquent, backed up with supporting quotes from sensible sources, a sprinkling of humour and very wrong.

Sam Harris and RD do advocate intolerance, but not against religion, they don't think we should tolerate the innate respect religious views should have. In effect that means RD and SH want free speech and open debate. The ability to consider someone's belief deluded without it seeming like a taboo and mortal insult, and without people like RJ Eskow getting on their high horse about how evil RD and SH must be to even want a world without religion.

How can you argue that science should take a dominant role over faith when you fail to meet a scientist's first obligation, which is to acknowledge the data whether or not it supports your point of view?

Except that the data does support RD and SH's view that everyone religious is deluded. There is more evidence in my view (and RD and SH's) to suggest that most of the planet is suffering from some kind of psychoses/brainwashing or invisible-friend disease than there is that God rules our lives.

The only thing that atheists have in common with each other is that they don't believe in any god, everything else is open to debate. At least we as a group don't ex-communicate/burn/make-war/torture-to-confession those that disagree with our view/methods, that's religion's forte, and it wasn't just a couple of bad apples either, it was institutionalised and while the methods have become more "friendly" the institutionalised exclusion of others is still present.

And to forestall the usual idiocy about Hitler and Stalin and the occasional badly behaved atheist to show how morally inferior atheism is, is like saying that all priests must be paedophiles because a couple of them are, in other words, outright nonsense.

If nuclear weapons had been available during the crusades, the so called "Holy Land" would now be a sea of glass.

39. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #9193 by Martin on November 24, 2006 at 5:14 am

Ok... Pacific time... so UTC/GMT -8 hours.

I didn't think I was up at 0400h :P

40. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #9191 by Martin on November 24, 2006 at 5:12 am

Have we chased him away?

Hmm.. .the timestamps on this site are irritating me... wonder what time zone they are in.

41. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #9012 by Martin on November 23, 2006 at 7:38 am

Most of your new article is the same old misrepresentation and misunderstanding as the previous articles.

The section where you talk about the feminists and their reaction to you is one where I think there is a level of truth.

I suspect you'll find that most of the more vocal people in any group are the ones who have had a profound experience in relation to that movement, be it a hallucination that confirms god, or abuse by men/church/rabid-rabbits, something I'd consider more human nature than anything else, and as such it's use in your article is an attempt to twist a feature just as common (probably more so, since there are more religions) in religion to suit your message.

The big difference between religion and atheism is that atheism is basically about tolerance, while religion is basically about intolerance.

Atheism: I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't hurt me or others. If you can show me what I believe is wrong, I'll change my view.

Religion: Do as I say, anyone that doesn't is bad. Nothing you say will change my mind.

Which leads onto your comment about "pure". Just the name is an implication that anyone that doesn't agree is "impure", which in common parlance means bad.

Religion, and "pure" by the sounds of it, is all about exclusion. Anyone that doesn't match their/your belief is not included in your club, at best they are tolerated, which is certainly not the same as being accepted, because by it's nature, religion has to be right.

After the civil war in the US, blacks were still considered to be inferior, the difference is that they were now tolerated as probably being human. That's why, in my view, the hatred and violence still goes on, because too many people in the US (and other places in the world) haven't managed to accept blacks as equals yet, an attitude encouraged by brainwashing of children that's as insidious as that of religion, and reinforced in society by biased and prominent crime statistics in newspapers (as opposed to sermons and thought for the day) that paint far too simplistic a picture of the actual situation. But racial inequality, despite my belief that religion is largely to blame for a lot of it's roots, is not really on topic for this thread.

Back on topic; I'd give a lot more weight to your claim that "pure" isn't homophobic if what they taught was, "people may live as they chose and do what is right for them and that is good, we believe that marriage is the best way though."

Instead it seems their message is: "Marriage is the only true way". Which is a very black and white message and basically religious dogma.

Religion (well almost all of them) don't preach tolerance, they preach inclusion. Join us, or go to hell (literally).

42. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #9005 by Martin on November 23, 2006 at 6:25 am

People can pray for me all they want. I consider it no different than someone wishing me good luck.

I pity them though for their strange need to express their concern or best wishes for me through the auspices of some mystical entity. Seems like an inferiority complex to me. "I'm not worthy of wishing you luck, so I'll ask the super fairy in the sky, she'll wish you luck instead."

Mostly I take it in the spirit intended, and laugh quietly to myself as I would at someone who handed me a goat's foot, a 4 leaf clover for the same reason.

I'm a bit disappointed that no one has sacrificed a goat for me yet though... :( Surely there must be some Christians out there that have actually read the bible :P

43. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #8988 by Martin on November 23, 2006 at 4:41 am

David,

Billy already expressed my response, and probably more clearly than I could have.

The problem with your answer is that it throws up more discrepancies.

If we assume that you are right and that Luke's is Mary's genealogy and the other is Joseph's then Matthew, who insists on using Joseph's line of descent, clearly invalidates the theory of the virgin birth by explicitly claiming Jesus' line of descent from David through the male line. Either he was born of a virgin, and hence fulfilled one prophecy, or he was descended from David through Joseph and fulfilled the other prophecy. He can't do both.

Regardless, the two accounts cannot be reconciled without accepting that there is an error in the bible, and where there is one error there are likely to be more, hence the entire bible becomes suspect and cannot be used as a reliable source of anything until clearly verified. With a text that's variously 4000 odd years old that will prove rather difficult.

I wonder if you've read Robin Lane Fox's book on the bible: The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. It's certainly on my reading list.

You'll not object to me giving greater weight to his words than yours I hope, after-all, while your day job is religion, his life-long day-job is ancient history, and he is extremely well respected in that field.

44. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #8777 by Martin on November 22, 2006 at 8:48 am

errata: the first Mark should of course read Matthew.

45. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #8776 by Martin on November 22, 2006 at 8:46 am

You obviously have no knowledge of how genalogies were written, or that Luke was an historian who almost certainly had access to the same sources as Matthew


An arrogant presumption on your part. You obviously never learnt to spell, since you spelt genealogies wrong. I can be just as arrogantly superior as you... that doesn't get us anywhere.

And while the subject matter might be "boring" for someone who has already dismissed it out of hand, that doesn't make it wrong.

You assert that Luke was an historian with access to the same sources as Mark.

You are an historian. If you write a book on a character in history, then you, as a conscientious researcher examine all the evidence you can find and when you write your book you use the evidence which you most consider to be accurate. I'll presuppose that you have integrity and wouldn't want to push your own agenda. Certainly this is what I was taught in history when I was 13 and writing my own history essays.

Explain then why Luke, as an acknowledged colleague of yours, with access to Matthew's published works as you claim, decided to not use Matthew's data?

The simple answer is that Luke didn't agree with Matthew, had sources he considered better, or didn't bother to do any actual research and just made it up.

Can one be a good historian if one accepts two totally different sets of data as both being a valid description of the same thing?

People may well have different interpretations of what a piece of data or an event means, but that doesn't change the data or the event.

If Luke and Matthew disagreed about why Jesus crossed a particular bridge, e.g. he was leading a crowd, or the crowd pushed him, then you could just about understand that, but the fact remains that he did cross the bridge. (Ignoring that the bible is the "word of god" and hence any discrepancy is an indication of the fallibility of this deity).

Just as the it appears that Joseph was Jesus' father (leaving aside the fact that if we allow the immaculate conception then God is Jesus' father and there's no way Jesus could be descended from David, certainly not on the male side), surely Luke and Matthew could at least agree on Joseph's father? Do they?

As far as I can tell religious apologists just resort to "god works in mysterious ways" when they are confronted with the obvious discrepancies.

46. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #8573 by martin on November 21, 2006 at 5:41 pm

how utterly boring, this whole god/religion debate. .. i can't even believe i am writing this here.
....
going to defend liberalism instead. that sounds more important. although dawkins feels important, and i don't...

47. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred

Comment #8393 by Martin on November 21, 2006 at 5:45 am

A wonderful article.

Took a while to read.. and I'll have to go back and attack it with a dictionary to fully understand it, but I think it's rather interesting and Kauffmann's view is certainly one worth investigating.

48. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #8381 by Martin on November 21, 2006 at 4:50 am

Using sceptics books is a perfectly valid scientific approach.

1) Create your hypothesis (The Bible is historically accurate)
2) Falsify it (The bible is historically inaccurate)
3) Find proof of 2.

If you find proof of 2) (just a single one) then 1) cannot be true, and you need to change your hypothesis.

The simplest proof that the bible is historically inaccurate is that the gospels cannot even agree on the genealogy of Jesus. If the bible were historically accurate, then Jesus' family history would be accurate. The bible is historically inaccurate. QED.

Once you have established that just one part of the bible is inaccurate all of it becomes suspect.

The big difference between science and theism is that if someone goes to a scientist: "here's proof you are wrong" the scientist goes "damn... back to the drawing board" and tries to come up with a theory that also explains this new evidence.

If someone points out that the bible is wrong, this can mean only one of two things. The bible isn't the word of god, or god is fallible.

The second point doesn't fit too well with Christian religion, as it invalidates most of what Christianity believes.

If the bible isn't the word of god, then what is the point of it? We've already established that it's suspect as a history, and it's now not the word of god, therefore it must be fiction.

Oh.. and trying to excuse the error as mis-type or a copying error or some king manipulating the words... well, all of that just lends more weight to my argument that the bible is worthless as the source of anything other than entertainment.

49. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #8356 by Martin on November 21, 2006 at 2:36 am

Well, it seems we are at an impasse.

What you define as evidence, I don't.
What you define as faith, I don't.

Since we cannot even establish a consistent starting point we will never agree, simply because you see the universe in your way, and I see it in mine.

My experience has shown me that the evidence we see is shaped by our beliefs, one of the reasons lots of bad decisions are made. We see evidence and interpret it in a certain way based on our own beliefs; in this instance I am talking about say what a military commander might believe about his current situation.

You believe in some form of deity, I don't, as a result both of us will see the evidence the way we want it.

That I see the evidence more rationally, is, for me at least, as given.

Arrogant as it might seem, the vast majority of intelligent and educated people agree with me, and if you need evidence of that: In 1986, Burnham P. Beckwith, wrote on "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith" for the skeptic magazine Free inquiry. While I grant you that he can be considered to be pushing his theme, the fact that of the 43 studies he reviewed only 4 showed a positive correlation between religiosity and intelligence.

More recent studies by gallop and others have supported this conclusion.

It's only fair to note that education and religiosity not correlated significantly amongst "social" scientists. I do believe historians fall into that category.

So, maybe you do know something the rest of the scientific world doesn't. Or one could argue that social science deals with people, and people are, for the most part, irrational, therefore social scientists must be able to think irrationally to understand the people they are studying. Does that make them more inclined to irrationality in their own right? Maybe a study is in order. Ironically, it would have to be carried out by social scientists.

50. 42% think faith is as evil as smallpox

Comment #8036 by Martin on November 20, 2006 at 8:26 am

I have to wonder about theo actually publishing the first result.

Admittedly it would give secularists more ammunition if they didn't and it was revealed that they "suppressed" it, although I suspect they were tempted.