Comments by David A Robertson
1. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies
Comment #237664 by David A Robertson on August 27, 2008 at 12:08 am
What has happened to the second article on this man and the postings that go with it? I can't see it anywhere on the articles page or the front page. Has it been removed?
2. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him
Comment #237463 by David A Robertson on August 26, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Yes - of course there would be religious people who would be all self righteous and point out that there is where atheism leads you. (Just as there are atheists who are doing the same thing here - although with some more justification because of the hypocrisy). But that would not make it right. And indeed on our website we would not allow it if it was not relevant and slanderous.
I don't care whether religious or non religious people do it. It is cheap and tawdry and does not fit in with rational and clear thinking. Stay out of the gutter.
3. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him
Comment #237458 by David A Robertson on August 26, 2008 at 2:00 pm
If, for instance, Christopher Hitchens committed adultery, do you not think that it would be all over the Christian sites? It would probably be brought up on FCOS as well. t
I don't think so. Why? What possible relevance would it have? I am well aware of some of Hitchens foibles but why would I want to broadcast them? What relevance would they have to the debate?
4. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him
Comment #237452 by David A Robertson on August 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Apologies for saying sexual sin - and yes you are correct in pointing out that it is just hypocrisy. So how is that news? Is this man a well known world famous preacher? No. He is just one of many hypocrites who use religion to exploit people.
But the reason it is posted here (and the reason it is ad hominem) is that it allows and indeed encourages people to post that because a) this man is a liar therefore b) all religious people are liars - after all what can you expect from people who peddle 2000 years worth of lies. It is a cheap shot and illogical. But hey who cares, as long as it means that atheists can once again feel justified in their own faith (or lack thereof) and can once again rejoice that they are not religious hypocrites. As I said, cheap and nasty and not worthy of this site.
5. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him
Comment #237444 by David A Robertson on August 26, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Secondly, there is no such thing as an argument for atheism and that is a wildly inappropriate accusation to make. Outside of just plain wrong and stupid.
Whitepearl - for once I completely agree with you. Thanks...
6. Porn pastor's wife vows to stand by him
Comment #237321 by David A Robertson on August 26, 2008 at 10:52 am
Two articles on Michael Guglielmucci -
Just a question - but why does this oasis of clear thinking and reason seem to have this tabloid like obcession with the sexual sins of hypocritical clergy? The glee, self righteousness and pompousness of this triviality is bad enough - but the thought that it is actually posted here as an argument for atheism is even sadder. I thought RD did not approve of ad hominem?
Comment #235173 by David A Robertson on August 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm
"And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?"
How does an omniscient God not know where the only man on earth is?
Tyler - it must be really hard being a fundamentalist literalist. If I know my daughter is in the house and I come in and say Emma Jane where are you? Am I seeking information I do not know or am I asking her to reveal something? Think about it.
Oh yes he does. He very clearly refutes all but the one he likes including theism.
Steve you are obviously reading a different book. He talks about his own inclinations - his rejection of the Absurd universe theory and the multiverse and instead says his view lies somewhere between the 'life principle' and the self explaining universe. He accepts there is putrpose and meaning but does not like the idea of an arbitrary God. But again you are missing the point - I never claimed that Davies was a theist (indeed precisely the opposite). I did state that he made a good case for theism - which he rejects - but nonetheless it was in my view, fair and honest. So please don't accuse me of lying, quote mining etc. Some people are able to put across other points of view. They do not live in the fundie black and white world.
Anyway time to go for another week....I suspect this thread has run its course - going by the degeneration of the last couple of pages but if there is anything interesting, in the words of Arnold 'I'll be back'.
Meanwhile I leave you with my most delightful moment on RD net for weeks - the Milliband thread and the pathetic attempts to square the following circle. When a political leader is bad and an atheist (aka Stalin) his atheism is as irrelevant to his politics as his facial hair (according to the Master). But according to the Philosopher when a political leader is 'good' and an open atheist then this has a lot to do with his politics. It is the best example of having your cake and eating it I have come across yet - and one that shows the inherently flawed logic of the atheist fundamentalist. HAve fun...good night.
Comment #235158 by David A Robertson on August 22, 2008 at 1:33 pm
David, do you find any meaningful difference between Landover Baptist and Westoboro Baptist?
Decius - no. I prefer Landover Baptist. Westboro is sick, evil, perverse and from the Pit. Which is of course why RD uses it as an example of what religion is like.
I compare Biblical fairy tale stories with proper scientific facts and already the first few pages (genesis) are totally crap.
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!
You can comment on Amazon with any nickname if you like -- possibly the user "anonymus atheist" was D.A.R. himself try to get 10 instead 20 books sold per year.
Again Roland - you need to read before you comment. It was not on Amazon but on this website.
Epilepsy is caused by devils?
Mustard seeds being the smallest seeds?
RevDark - just to keep you happy lets deal with another couple of your accusations...and by the way if you stop and think you should be able to work out why my statement that I have not found any scientific or historic inaccuracy in the Bible is not a clear demonstration that I am a 'loathsome little liar'. Let me give you a clue...if I tell you that the sun went down today at 8pm, would you accuse me of scientific inaccuracy?
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.
Could you point to a saying of Jesus that backs up your underlying principle of 'respect for life'?
Yes - the sermon on the Mount.
I agree with you about contraception.
And your world-view seems a bit Euro-centric to me.
Hardly. It is the hyper liberal 'Christian' atheism of RD net which is Euro-centric. Not biblical Christianity.
If the bible is inspired by God, why is its message so confused and hard to understand?
Maybe it is not confused and hard to understand. Maybe we are.
What I said, Robertson, was that atheism is true. Science demonstrates this. All the evidence of reality demonstrates this. Therefore historical analysis must begin with the presupposition of atheism in the same way it begins with presuppositions about the prevalence of gravity and plate tectonics in the past.
Cartomance - once again thanks for putting in writing and confirming what I have been saying all along. You cannot discuss whether or not atheism is true because that is your basic presupposition and starting point. Of course it is true. Anyone or anything that disagrees with that must then self-evidently be wrong. It is the ultimate in cicular fundamentalist arguments.
It is plain common sense David. I see that you have been indoctrinated beyond reason. I no longer want to discuss with you. I see also that you are homophobic.
Jamcam - two things. For someone who is supposed base their opinions on facts and evidence you have just made two statements without either. Your evidence for the rather sweeping statement that 'one must always go for the simple explanation' is 'it is plain common sense'. Who says? How is that evidence? And there are many many examples of where that is not the case. Plain common sense tells you that the world was created, or that the sun goes round the earth, or that humans can't fly.
And your second statement that I am homophobic is also a prejudiced statement made without any evidence. There is nothing in my previous post which you could regard as homophobic - unless you think that to actually discuss the questions of human sexuality is to be homophobic. I realise that homosxuality is the great shibboleth of modern Western society but I really did expect a bit more reason and evidence here - and less of the emotive name calling. For the record I regard homophobia as stupid and evil.
I know that as I post he views me as somewhat equivalent to a paedophile.
Steve, unfortunately you know wrong. I no more regard as equivalent ot a paedophile than I do a hetrosexual.
This thread certainly provides a lot of reading material. I would be very interested in a more detailed explanation of how DR thinks scripture should be interpreted. Are there any firm principles that can tell you what is to be taken literally?
Oysten - again I put some of that in my book - but not enough. The basic principles are that you read the Bible according to context, genre and literary type. There is poetry, history, apocalyptic, law and prophecy.
I am sure these questions have been asked before. Be good to have your take on them.
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.
Richard Dawkins faces real death threats, especially when in the USA. On his programme on Darwin on Monday he read out some: "I hope you get hit by a church bus and die slowly". For more see the Ugly on left hand side of home page here.
D'arcy - wonderful stuff. That would never happen on RD net would it...oops just read teh following on the US school district thread ".I hope David Davis gets hit by a Church van today and dies". Of course that was irony - or a Christian pretending to be an atheist. Maybe then this on the Lennox thread... "Quite seriously, this guy has a gravely advanced case of the virus and should be taken down to the back of the barn and shot thru the head.". It is the sheer breathtaking hypocrisy of RD that stands out. He complains to journalists etc when a few 'religious nutters' write on his site (and it is a very few) but conveniently ignores the many atheist threats and expletives. And even more bizarrely allows them to stay.
I prefer doing it this way because even David Robertson is atheistic in most of the things he does. He doesn't bring any gods into the equation when he goes and makes a sandwich or turns on the TV to watch Countdown
Cartomancer - actually I do. If I can't thank God for it. I don't do it.
First He creates heaven and doesn't forsee the angelic rebellion.
NMcC - he did.
Comment #235119 by David A Robertson on August 22, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I see that my final plea has gone unheeded...after a bright start I'm sorry that this thread seems to have descended into the usual in jokes and crudeness. Still lets at least deal with some of the main points.
David, thank you for your answer. Can I ask what experience, history, truth claims, reason, what others say etc convinces you? And if you wish to convert me, what would convince me?
Brian - thank you for your post and for the tone which comes across in it. Like you I too am only interested in truth. In terms of what would convince you - I don't know. I certainly know that I cannot and would not attempt to convert you - that's Gods job! HOwever my aim is to cause people to question, challenge some of the presuppositions and misunderstandings that so many people have about Christianity and to at least present an alternative point of view. As regards my evidence - I list that at the end of The Dawkins Letters. As regards the cheque I would only use that as a personal example of answered prayer and would certainly not - and never have - use it as an ultimate proof for God. As regards the PCEA site - they only have a couple of the letters - although I understand they intend to produce most of the rest.
I should also point out that just as you have never heard an argument for God which does not presuppose the existence of God - I have never heard an argument against God by atheists which does not pre-suppose the non-existence of God.
Finally - in your later post you ask what I think about the link. I think it is fascinating - I dsiagree however with both his premises. I do think there is such a thing as a 'world view' although I also take his point that the term is a bit grand. But thanks for an interesting link.
I think you are misusing the term "make a case". Davies puts forward an explanation only to refute it. What I have a problem with is you taking part of Davies argument, and ignoring the bit that then goes on to explain why theism is not an acceptable option. That suggests you believe you understand the physics better than Davies. If you are going to accept what Davies says for a hypothetical case for theism, you have to then accept what he says against that case, otherwise you are simply quote-mining.
Steve - the trouble is that that is precisely what I did. You left out the part of the quote from my letters in which I state explicitly that Davies is not a theist. Furthermore at the end of The Goldilocks Enigma Davies puts forward a number of options and the cases for and against them. He does not then refute all but the one he likes. He presents a fair case - which is precisely what I said.
I was wondering why 30,000 denominations all have their own ideas as to who or what god is - Is he the Catholic interpretation or the Protestant one? I could go on for ever, but my point, as you should have realised, was that god has not made it very easy to understand what it is he wants out of his believers.
Philip - what is ignorant is your inability to understand that it is possible to have 30,000 denominations and for many - if not most of them - to have the same view of God. I personally don't care too much about denominations. I do care about whether they accept biblical theology as expressed in the classic Christian creeds such as the Apostles, the Nicean, etc.
I am more concerned with your rabid hatred of atheists.
This is again an ignorant comment - unless you adopt the extraordinary position that to disagree with someone is to hate them. I have no hatred of atheists at all and certainly of none on here. I don't know any of you. How could I hate you?
Yet you failed to comment on my other points... quote mining again David, poor show!
Tyler - I realise that this is one of the standard accusations - but before you use it you should at least make sure you understand what it is you are saying. Quote mining is when someone selectively takes quotes from people, out of context, in order to make accusations etc. Answering one example out of the several that you gave may be many things - but it is not quote mining. Of course you are not interested in answers because these are not questions but accusations. If you really wanted the answers they are not that difficult to come by.
I am going to say no more on this topic (honest, I wont!) But thanks for clarifying, even if I am not convinced!
Scottish Geologist - again thanks for your post (and actually I have to say that you are one of the better informed people on this site - at least about the church). I personally don't think the subject is all that important but for what it is worth the Free Church does have a declaratory act (1846) disavowing persecuting principles. We have regarded the WCF's statement about the Pope, not as a doctrine of the Bible (how could it be?) but rather a (mistaken) historical statement. I guess we should just remove it but to be honest there are a 101 more important things we have to deal with. In 22 years in the ministry I have only heard the issue mentioned at most a couple of times. Indeed it is quite amusing to see that an issue which has no importance in the Church, is considered so important by some atheists.
It is, however, the crucial one where religion is concerned.
NFT - yes it is the crucial one for you. Because it agrees with you. But it is not the main one in the OED. And I would have thought that the following was more crucial as far as religion was concerned - 1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, 2) strong belief in a religion and 3) a system of religious belief. Faithful incidentally is 'true to the facts or the original'. My defintion of faith would be the above - or perhaps faith is trust based upon evidence and fact.
Doubting Thomas is not commending faith without evidence. It is attacking the lack of belief despite the evidence.
Is it me, or does it sound like this was sarcastic, but has instead been taken as genuine?
Q - of course. What else could it be? If only you could see the rest of the quote - which like the others that my publisher cited at the beginning of the book - mysteriously disappeared from RD Net - producing yet another wave of accusations about my being a liar - making up quotes that were not there.
There are two distinctly different versions of this story in the "inerrant" bible.
Donald - all I was doing was answering Lauries 'killer' question. Its not that difficult. Of course there are two different versions - because they are by two different authors. As an historian I would be very suspicious of eye-witness accounts which exactly corresponded. I would expect to see different perspectives. By putting them together you get the whole picture. Which is what I did. You should really read the thing for yourself and not rely on quotes from atheist manuals/websites.
The Bishop of Oxford highly endorsed Dawkins' TGD, now is he a closeted atheist by your logic?
Bonzai - Yes.
10. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister
Comment #235007 by David A Robertson on August 22, 2008 at 11:04 am
As I am already involved in another thread perhaps you will forgive me if I ignore all the personal insults and the usual list of arguments from The Atheists Handbook to arguing with Christians (and if you have any questions please feel free to post them on the other thread). For once lets try and stick with the main topic - Graylings article rejoicing that having an atheist prime minister would be good for Britain.
I repeat my question - if, in the word of Philip 'being an atheist has NOTHING to do with a person's actions' then why is Milliband being an atheist a reason for rejoicing or voting for him? I fully accept that there are some consistent atheists here but for those of you who think otherwise stop hiding behind insults and accusations of snideness and answer the question.
As for Phils charge that the Pope actually kills people for his religion perhaps I should allow for hyperbole and bad English? Apparently Phil means that the fact that the Pope teaches Catholic doctrine, and that this doctrine is guilty of condemning people to death, therefore ipso facto the Pope is guilty. The Catholic Church is in my opinion wrong in its teaching about contraception and the use of condoms. However it could also be argued that the major cause of the spread of AIDS in Africa is sexual promiscuity (NOT the only cause) and that the ABC approach adopted by the church and the government in Uganda is one that should be adopted throughout Africa. (Abstain, Be Faithful, Use a Condom)/ Of course there are those Western Liberal ideologues who believe that whatever happens their doctrine of sexual promiscuity should never be challenged. Those who advocate a condom only approach are therefore as guilty as the Pope and should also be charged with murder (by Phils understanding) - as should the mega medical drugs companies (and the scientists who are in their pockets) who develop vaccines but refuse to give them away to the poor. But I guess that would be too much consistency?.
And Lazarus - I do not know 'very well that Stalins actions were not motivated by lack of gof'. What is your evidence for that? Having read three biographies of Stalin it strikes me that Stalins atheism was a major motivating factor in his actions. That may be uncomfortable for you but just remember that I am not saying that every atheist is like Stalin - there are Christian atheists (like Dawkins) who, according to the philosopher John Gray, retain the ethics and morality of Christianity whilst adopting the philosophy of atheism. Anyway the world is not just simple black and white - there are many shades of grey.
11. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister
Comment #234720 by David A Robertson on August 22, 2008 at 12:21 am
being an atheist has NOTHING to do with a person's actions
Philip - fascinating - being an atheist has no effect on your actions - perhaps you should tell Mr Grayling? - and the others who are exulting in this news and think that Millibrand being an atheist is a good reason to vote for him.
By the way - don;t want to get off topic but you did make an interesting claim 'the pope kills people because of his job'. Could you let us know the last person/persons that the Pope killed? I am sure the media would be interested (and Billy) - we could do him for murder...
12. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister
Comment #234680 by David A Robertson on August 21, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I now understand. Stalins atheism was irrelevant to his evil deeds which were clearly not part of his politics or policies, whereas Millibrands atheism is part of his politics. And of course people kill for religious reasons and they would never kill for other reasons (money/power/greed/jealousy/sex) - especially they would never kill because of their atheism. When Stalin killed religious people it was of course nothing to do with his atheism. Religious people who are elected such as Blair and Brown are clearly not accountable to the electorate whereas atheists are. Stalin was of course answerable to the Party but then we know that that was a pseudo religion. So it is quite simple really. If an atheist leader is a bad atheist then we can simply point out that it was nothing to do with his atheism because atheism is nothing (atheists are simply those who do not believe in God - they believe nothing and do nothing because of their atheism so lo and behold their atheism cannot be responsible for any of their evil deeds). However if an atheist is a good atheist (and certainly Millibrand fits the description of someone who believes nothing and will do nothing!) then his atheism is what motivates and inspires him, and that is why all right thinking atheists should vote for him. Brilliant! Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the FA!
13. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister
Comment #234546 by David A Robertson on August 21, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Still waiting for an answer to the question - why is Stalins atheism as irrelevant as his facial hair but Millibrands is relevant?
There are of course those who have already posted that it does not make one iota of difference to them. ie. Jesus Jones (great post by the way). Good on you - at least you are being consistent. But there are significant number who seem to think this is great news - including Grayling. (and see the quote below) - so again let me ask the question. I look forward to the answer.
I'm flabbergasted that something like this is actually on the newspapers, it means that the atheist blow back against the theist attempts to gain political power is starting to pay off.
hip hip , hurray.
14. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister
Comment #234523 by David A Robertson on August 21, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Sorry - force of habit....been so long since I was allowed to post under my own name....have got used to the new one. Such a despicable thing to do....shows what a dishonest, lying, thieving, ignorant, relgious troll I must be.
Anyway children - are you happy now?
Meanwhile back to the point. Anyone else find it amusing and self contradictory that whereas Stalins atheism is of no more relevance than his facial hair, Millibrands atheism is seen as a reason why he would be a better leader and why we should vote for him?
Comment #233492 by David A Robertson on August 20, 2008 at 1:45 am
The Dawkins Letters
I would recommend the paper be better quality, as my cats are a bit fussy about their cat litter.
Excellent Vaal. My favourite so far....
Why not read some of the other flea books for comparison purposes? We have had to read some in the cause of intellectual honesty - I don't see why you shouldn't have the pleasure.
I think I've read most of them. Still to get on to Beatties. In my view Lennox's is by far the best. I quite liked a Catholic replies to Dawkins as well.
What a fuck-nut. I know there are a lot of fuck-nuts out there, but how did this moron get a book published.
I've been trying to read some of that looking for his argument... kept looking... kept looking. Eventually I gave up.
JMAc - clearly I have been unable to attain to your high standard of reasoning, logic and language. I'm heartbroken....maybe I should go and do a Judas?!
My biggest tip to him would be to remove the lies
Sure Billy - tell me any lies in the Dawkins Letters and I will remove them. Even better I will apologise for each one and name check the person who pointed it out. I wait with baited breath.
Atheist societies
Check those homicide figures for christian USA and portugal - compare them with the secular countries (fig 2)- no wonder you ignored it. More lies vicar?
Poor Billy. Don't you realise that the US is a secular society (as proudly proclaimed by Hitchens etc)? Or that Portugal has one of the lowest church attendances in Europe? Please get your facts right before calling other people liars.
Other
No, David. You will find this standard definition of faith in any dictionary, e.g. that notoriously atheistic publication, the Oxford English Dictionary: Faith: 3c. The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof.
NFT - a classic example of selective quotation whilst ignoring the rest. What the OED actually states is "1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, 2) strong belief in a religion and 3) a system of religious belief. Faithful incidentally is 'true to the facts or the original'. What you have done is presumably select one of the many definitions from the full version and put it down because it suits you. That is dishonest. If you are going to argue with people you have to argue against what they are actually saying - not what you would like them to be saying.
But that is because few religious people are educated in science and philosophy, and so they don't understand the profound problems involved in their positions.
Brilliant Steve. How do you know this? How many of the non-religious people are educated in science and philosophy? Do you have the comparative figures? No. All you have is wishful thinking and once again atheist myth without any empirical evidence. You want it to be the fact that atheists are educated in science and philosophy whereas religious people are not - and so lo and behold it suddenly becomes the case. Yet no evidence. I will offer you two pieces of evidence the other way - firstly I know many philosophers and scientists who are religious (and many atheists who have not been educated in either and yet claim both!) and secondly around 40% of scientists claim to be religious. Are they uneducated?
The book "The Goldilocks Enigma" does not contain a case for theism. Theism (along with other explanations) is clearly dismissed.
Steve you need to read the Goldilocks Enigma again. I just read over the last couple of chapters last night. He does make a case for theism - and implies he does not accept it. But he makes a fair and in my view a good case. The difference between an intellectual atheist like Davies and an emotional one like RD is that Davies encourages people to think for themselves whereas Dawkins implies that you must accept his opinion or you are a fool. And I notice you did not answer my question - if Davies is such a convinced atheist why does he endorse Collins book 'the language of God'?
By the way was that meant to impress us? How many books have you sold? How many has richard sold?
Billy - the good old pissing contest. See you are keeping the standards up. RD in the cause of truth and justice has sold 2 million. I in the cause of making a mint for myself have sold 20,000. Guess RD wins. If that is the way you want to think. But then Rick Warren has sold 20 million so guess religion wins after all!
As for whether only atheists can be good historians, I answer that one with a qualified yes
Cartomancer - thank you for that admission. It really does evidence the fundamentalist mindset of this website. I would never argue that only Christians can be good historians. But your philosophy is so set in stone and so overarching that it is the presupposition upon which everything else must stand.
Can I ask then, how do you (or the church generally) define faith?
Peace - another good question. Thanks. As in the OED above - trust in a person. Such faith is reasonable. The difference between faith and reason is that we do not claim to understand or know everything. Indeed everyone lives their life with a mixture of faith and reason.
Hey people, here is something that may be interesting. They may talk this way over our funeral. A couple of years old but shows some attitudes from Christian's response to an atheist who died. May need to let it load.
Sigh. Bluerover you do realise that Landrover Baptist is an spoof? Sometimes you guys can be so gullible....
Anyway must go...will check in at the end of the week. Meanwhile can I please ask that you stick to the point and avoid the meaningless accusations and insults. Lets just accept that I am a shit and get on with it....
Comment #233488 by David A Robertson on August 20, 2008 at 1:40 am
Creationism
I believe that creationism is a deeply worrying problem with religion. I have come across it increasingly via friends who are teachers and lecturers. There are a not insignificant number of people who wish to abandon areas of science even at degree level in the UK. I don't believe we want, for example, medical students who are profoundly ignorant of perhaps the key idea in biology. If you are prepared to denounce creationism clearly, then I would have to admit that I have, at least to some degree, misjudged you.
Steve, it really does depend what you mean by creationism. To some extent everyone who believes in God is a creationist in that they believe that God created. The problem is that creationist has become a loaded and indeed a political term - much to the satisfaction of both Ken Ham and RD - because it allows a war. If by creationism you mean the kind of thing espoused by Ken Ham then yes - I will denounce it - because I regard it as fundamentally ignorant and divisive. As to your comment on medical students and the lack of scientists. Do you not think it interesting that as British society has become more secular and dumbed down there has been a corresponding decrease in the number of people prepared to do science? On the other hand I look at my own congregation and see 20 medic and doctors and several post doc scientists. It is not religion that is keeping people from science - it may be that the atheistic naturalistic philosophy is a bigger barrier. And it is also not quite as black and white as you would like to think - I know of at least four biology lecturers in major universities in Europe who are old earth creationists. I even know of students who have been and are being taught by RD who are the same - not that they would dare say so!
1) For Jesus to be meaningful, there has to be sin to be saved from. Otherwise, everyone goes to heaven - universalism.
2) So sin is a critical doctrine - where did it come from?
3) Bible makes it clear (Romans) that sin entered through Adam
4) Ergo, Adam HAD to be a real person
5) So Adam and Eve HAD to be "created"
6) This is completely at odds with evolution
SG - Steve et al. I'm getting tired so I will try and deal with this issue through SG's post. Points 1-4 I agree with. Point 5 - yes - but he could have been created through evolution. Point 6 does not follow. As for death etc. As I have already explained - as either an old earth creationist or a theistic evolutionist I accept that there was death before the fall. I also believe that the fall brought death. Can the two be reconciled? I think so. Go figure....
One problem I have with religions is that they should not contradict science facts if they are to give me any reason to believe. (Facts such as Evolution, gravity, age of the universe, atoms, DNA, existence of dinosaurs etc, etc)
MBee - totally agree.
In this regard let me say SG that saying one accepts something and then questioning it is not contradictory. For example I have said a) that I believe the Resurrection and b) if the ressurection were true. The latter statement is asking those who listen to work out the conclusions from a premise that they may not initially accept. It is not a contradiction.
The Bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
beside lot's of contradictions with Jewish custom, history, archeology etc... which was pointed out here during the last years -- are you sure you have read the Bible properly to miss all these ?
Of course Roland - all you have to do is read your atheist websites and handbooks and you can come up with all the answers! Try something a wee bit different. How about reading the Bible for yourself - not through the glasses of other people? And try to be a little more open minded. I know its a big ask - but go on try - you may find it refreshing.
David - simple question: how did Judas Iscariot die?
Laurie - simple question or simple accusation? Anyway the answer is not difficult - he committed suicide by hanging himself in hiw own field - a field that was later called Akeldama - the field of blood. And your point was?
The first inaccuracies are right there on page 1. "In the beginning, God made heaven and earth". Ignoring for the moment that there's not the slightest scientific evidence of the existence of heaven (though we may just not have found it yet), science shows that the universe predates the earth by around 9 billion years. In the beginning there was loads of stuff going on long before the earth was made.
Hungarian - spectactular. Your first quote and you get it so wrong. It does not say 'heaven' but 'the heavens' - meaning all that is above the earth. The heavens and the earth is an expression for the universe. Keep trying....
David- is it not disingenuous for you to pretend that you are genuinely unaware of the point that the poster was trying to make? The implications of Herod's death in 4 BC for the tales about Jesus are immediately obvious. It is extremely improbable that Herod would, as the Gospels say, have given an order to kill all the newborn male children in Israel, given that he had been dead for about four years. Does that not demonstrate that the Biblical stories about this are wrong?
No Q - not at all. Where does the Bible state that Jesus was born in the year zero? It doesn't. In fact most scholars think that the year 4BC fits the Bible best.
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm
Leviticus 11:13-19 refers to bats as fowl, when in fact they are mammals.
Leviticus 11:6 "...and the hare, because he cheweth the cud." Hares don't chew a cud. Hares are lagomorphs, not ruminants (members of the cattle family). Only ruminants chew cud, lagomorphs do not.
Tyler can I suggest that instead of trailing atheist websites for alleged discrepancies you actually do some reading, study and thinking for yourself? The chapter you refer to above is one where the precise nature of some of the animals, insects etc are actually not all that easy to identify. Also it is clearly not intended as a scientific definition of each animal or bird. You are getting pretty desperate when you are reduced to saying that the Bible is rubbish because a bat is placed at the end of a list of birds which cannot be eaten by the Israelites!
How do you get guidelines on morals from the gospels? Take one of the more straightforward dilemmas of modern society, the status of 'artificial' methods of contraconception and conception. Which saying of Jesus has any bearing on how we should decide when life begins in the conceptus, or whether it is permissible for egg and sperm to meet in a test-tube, or whether one woman should be allowed to bear a child which is genetically unrelated to her? How shall we decide from his words what contraceptive devices are legitimate? You brought up climate change as a man-made disaster, but controlling the world's birth rate has large implications for our future survivability. The Chinese have taken this problem in hand rather drastically: would Jesus approve of their methods? How would we know?
Polydactyl - great questions. The simple answer would be to say that I would take the principles of the Bible, which does not teach a detailed moral code for every situation, and apply them to specific situations. There are grey areas but basic principles like respect for life need to be applied. I would also ask what does atheism say about when life begins? Why would it be ok to kill a child in the womb but not outside of it? Who says Peter Singer is wrong? As regards the worlds birth rate I would suggest that in Europe we face the opposite problem - de population caused by a too low birth rate.
It was studying the bible as a book, something inscribed on parchment or papyrus with some sort of writing implement held in a human hand, and all the implications of that origin, which persuaded me that it was just that, a book--and I used to be a rather devout Christian. I don't find the issues 'relatively easily dealt with'; the bible is a material artifact, coming from a historical period of time. How does it differ from other similar artifacts?
Again - another great question. To which the simple answer (and like all simple answers it then begs lots of questions) is that it is inspired by God who used men to communicate his truth in written form.
Yes this may seem logical but you avoided the main point that I was making. Why choose the complicated explanation (virgin birth) over the simple explanation (mistranslation of virgin)?
Jamcam - sorry it is not a mistranslation. It is quite specific in the Gospels. So you present a false choice. And who made the rule that one must always go for the simple explanation? Is this a new part of the atheist creed? I can understand why some would like that to be the case but what is your evidence for this new absolute rule?
Comment #233485 by David A Robertson on August 20, 2008 at 1:39 am
Other religions and the Pope
So how do you decide? Emotional attachment? Personal experience
Brian - you use your mind and assess experience, history, truth claims, reason, what others say etc. Sadly far too many atheists seem to rely on personal experience (I went to church once>) or emotional attachment (I find atheism emotionally satisfying - unless you are irate!)
This "room for variety" was causing a bloody 30year civil war devastating Germany in 1618-1648, it's now one of the reasons for the Northern Ireland conflict, and many other smaller or bigger conflicts on earth.
Roland - precisely the opposite. If (and it is a big 'if' - you assume way too much and are far too simplistic in your historical analysis) the 30 years war was caused by religion then it was precisely because they did not accept that there was room for variety - which seems to be the fundamentalist atheist position here.
Please do not call me ignorant, I would expect nothing better from a slippery liar like your self but please, don't you dare call me ignorant.
I asked you a very simple question, how come the 29,999 other denominations have their own ideas about what should be the same god? Heck you have just admitted yourself that you need to change your churches ideas about your god and I was asking why this is a necessary thing when your god should have sorted it out ages ago!
Sorry Philip - but that is another ignorant comment. You cannot seem to get out of your head the notion that if there are different denominations they must believe in a different God. It is a facetious argument which I normally only hear from the most immature and ignorant religious fundamentalist. Once you can work out why it is facetious please feel free to get back to me - I don't want to waste time answering flat earth questions.
Except that you did. You swore to hold to the WCF that states in WCF25.6, the Pope is "that antichrist, that man of sin" So you did state that!
So lets return to Billy's Pope fetish and all the rather silly and ignorant comments that have come from that - with the believers exulting that at last you have caught me out lying! The Billy boy version so warming welcomed here is that the Free Church is anti the Pope and that I swore an oath to that effect but that I had my fingers crossed, was lying etc. The facts of the matter are somewhat different. I, like all other Free Church ministers, swear to uphold the 'doctrine' of the WCF. We have explicitly stated that we do not regard the identification of the Pope with the AntiChrist as a doctrine. I stated that before my ordination (at what they call my trials for licence). I know of no Free Church ministers who think the Pope is the Anti-Christ. I did not lie. I do not believe the Pope is the anti-Christ. Billy needs to get over his political Protestant Rangers Pope Fetish and come back to the real world. Oh - and just to avoid Billy starting on another series of rants - where he thinks continually saying the same thing is somehow making a killer point let me point out that if Billy said 'I have received a death threat from Christians' it would mean that he had received a death threat from Christians. It would not tell me how serious or jokey a threat it was. Sometimes plain English works best for communication. Hint.
Many here ask very difficult, precises questions that surely push you in to a corner better than I can. But I have to repeat my point. The reason you cannot see the worth in Sikhism, unlike many people originating from India, is because you are simply not trying hard enough.
Coldfusion. Sorry I have not been pushed into a corner yet. In fact this is almost ridiculously simple (apart from Steve Zara who does ask more penetrating and thoughtful questions). If this really is the best that this clearthinking oasis can come up with then it is little wonder that the New Atheists are losing the intellectual war. As regards the Sikhs you are wrong. For a couple of years I had a Sikh who had become a Christian minister working with me. He told me a great deal about Sikhism - including the racism and many of the other doctrines.
Comment #233483 by David A Robertson on August 20, 2008 at 1:37 am
Just spent another couple of hours reading and responding to your responses. There is one thing that saddens me though - and that is the inability of most (but not all) to actually listen to what is being said. It seems as though someone replies to something I have not said, announces it as something I have said, says this proves me a liar and then this is followed by squeals of delight from some atheists who are almost wetting themselves with delight that a) they have 'proved' me to be a liar/stupid/evil etc and that b) they are brilliant. I spend a couple of hours answering questions and then get accused of not answering questions. It is all quite surreal (a bit like Billys Pope fetish) and quite pathetic. What can one expect from a site where Landrover Baptist is used to make a killer point! Still amongst the dross there are some gems and I hope that I have been able to at least answer in part some of them. For the sake of clarity I have split this response into several sections.
Things I did not say but you argue against anyway
A hurricane because the invisible man in the sky doesn't like all the gay sex in Louisiana?
Sorry Diacanu - if you read what I have written you would see that I was arguing specifically against that point of view.
Yeah, but he also came on the site once rather ignorantly trying to diss macroevolution because he had been listening to some fundie.
Billy - no. I came on this site and asked questions about macroevolution because I had just come from a lecturer by Steve Jones entiteld 'why creationism is stupid'. I guess that is the first time he has been called a fundie (unless of course you were describing him as a fundie athiest?!).
Excuse me? I am curious how you manage to speak with such confidence. How do you know
these events happened, and in those order?
Bonzai - I don't know. I don't know everything. I was asked what my opinion was. That is my opinion based upon the information I have. I am thinking these things through. Unlike the fundies who just know everything (whether it be scientific, biblical, or historical) I like to think and try to work things out.
There you go again, equating homosexuality with something as disgusting as bestiality and paedophilia - you are placing it on the same level! What you refuse to acknowledge that sex between two consenting adults, provided they are not related, is the most perfectly natural thing in the world.
Philip - I was not equating homosexuality and paedophilia. I was asking the very simple question - are there forms of sexuality that we would consider to be wrong and on what basis would we consider them to be wrong? Homosexuality is a form of sexuality. As is paedophilia. As is hetrosexuality. You are making value judgements (ones with which I would agree) - that bestiality is wrong. Paedophilia is wrong. And sex should be between two non related consenting adults. But the question is why do you make those value judgements? On what basis? Why is sex between two consenting adults perfectly natural but sex between three consenting adults is not? Why is sex between relatives not natural? It certainly is in the natural world. Please do not all get on your moral high horses without any reason - shouting and yelling that I am equating homosexuality with paedophilia. How about answering the questions reasonably - instead of seeking to impose your moral values upon me - without reason. I will say one thing more - a number of years ago I had a debate on Scottish television about gay adoption. My opponent and myself actually got on really well and I felt it was a fruitful and constructive debate. It was what happened afterwards that greatly disturbed me - I was approached by three men from the Peter Tatchell group who obviously were not pleased at my stance. They asked about the age of consent for homosexuals. I asked why 16? Why not 14? or 12? Much to my astonishment they argued that there should be no age of consent at all and that children should be free to sexually experiment - as did animals. Furthermore they informed me that my two children (then aged 8 and 7) were sexually repressed by my religious and moral teaching and that they should be free to sexually experiment (including with adults) as they wanted. This they informed me was natural and liberating. Don't get me wrong - I am NOT stating that all homosexuals (nor even the majority) hold this view point. Indeed my opponent on that occasion was horrified at his 'supporters' and very grateful that they had not spoken on TV! However I do want to know what arguments people would use against this perspective. As a Christian who believes that sex should be in the context of marriage it is not difficult for me. But how would a relativist argue?
Now, am I being anti-logical and emotive or do you have a prejudiced view of gay people and atheists because of your religion?
Philip - yes you are being illogical and emotive - as are the people who pick up on your unwarranted diatribe. Stick with the facts.
I agree. We are considered to have no morals, and some of us have lifestyles that are equivalent to paedophilia.
Steve - again something that I did not say and do not believe. I really wish you would listen. Let me put it simply - all human beings are moral because they are human and made in the image of God. You do not need the Bible to tell you what morality is.
In short, Robertson knows full well that the so called 'death-threat' was a bit of pointless and meaningless humour between myself and Scottishgeologist, but prefers, for purposes of lying Christian propaganda and aspirations towards personal martyrdom for the faith, to also 'know' that there was an actual threat. Interestingly, Robertson's claim, in its most recent incarnation, reveals more than, I suspect, he would wish, since it's now evolved, over next to no time, into pure falsehood. t
Blockquote text
NMC - I see you are back from your self imposed exile. For those who are unaware of what happened. NMC made a rather sick joke about getting the IRA to kill me when I went to speak in Northern Ireland. It was in poor taste (like the 'joke' about shooting Lennox in the back of the head) but was allowed to remain until RD and Josh removed it. Why did they remove it? Did they have a humour by pass? Anyway NMC went in the huff with RD and others. Meanwhile they are now desperate to claim that I was lying when I said there was a 'death threat' on this site. Yes there was. Joke or not. It was there and it was so wrong that it had to be removed. Now where is the lie in that?
Climate change - the cause and results of - are a matter for scientific study. Nothing to do with 'sin'. Or does Leviticus explicitly state 'thou shallt not raise the global mean temperature by more than 2.50C'? Twisting, lying, conflating. It's all he can do. That's all there is to do if you want to claim bronze-age myths are true.
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....
What I got from his arguments is;
(1) Christians are on firm ground because the can imagine the supernatural as real.
(2) Atheists are 'close-minded' because they insist on evidence.
(3) Insisting on evidence is dogma and simply another belief system.
Well Greg you are going to have to read it again. None of your three statements are true. None of them are what I believe and none of them are what I have written. Of course you are free to believe what you want to believe, but please avoid the post modern nonsense of making up things that I did not say. Think...
19. Fleabytes
Comment #233017 by David A Robertson on August 19, 2008 at 3:04 am
My book the Dawkins Letters has been reprinted several times but my publisher now wants a revised edition which deals with some of the criticisms of it. Here is a question for you....in what way could it be improved?
Comment #233015 by David A Robertson on August 19, 2008 at 3:03 am
Come back to your other comments later but meantime I have a challenge for you.....
My book the Dawkins Letters has been reprinted several times but my publisher now wants a revised edition which deals with some of the criticisms of it. Here is a question for you....in what way could it be improved?
Comment #233006 by David A Robertson on August 19, 2008 at 2:53 am
Want a bet!!!! Your church is well known for its views on papacy. If you dont believe it, why are you swearing an oath about it - do you lie to your god too?
Poor Billy - How many times do I have to repeat it. I have never and will never swear an oath about the Pope. Please get over your wee obcession.
Why does having a history degree make you an expert on science?t
It doesn't. I am not an expert on science and have never claimed to be.
But it's not my doctoral studies that make me far better equipped to discuss the history of early christianity than you, it's my atheism. Specifically the fact I do not buy in to your ridiculous unevidenced belief in the god of the christian bible. I can take a properly historical view of the evidence because I do not credit supernaturalism as valid and buy in to the superstitious assumptions of early christian writers about the existence of their god character. Since you most avowedly do buy in to those assumptions you cannot be regarded as a good historian, or indeed much of a historian in any sense.
Cartomancer - (and the others who thought my question about your degree was nasty) - sorry for any offence. You have misread me. I was actually interested in what you have studied - as history is my own discipline. It is however the paragraph above that fascinates me. It seems as though you are saying that the only atheists can be proper historians (much as RD seems to imply that only atheists can be proper scientists). It is your atheism that qualifies you to speak about the history of early Christianity. In this you are admitting that what comes first is not the history - or the facts - but your presuppositions. I thank you for that admission because at least you are being honest.
Free speech comes at a price that's worth paying. Your forum can never be objective as a result of your restrictions.
I'm afraid that does not work. Can you imagine going to a debate and everyone was allowed to stand up and say what they wanted, whenever they wanted. No rules - just a free for all. How would that result in freedom of expression and objectivity? I am sure that many people are put off posting on this site because of the abusive and juvenile in crowd aspect of it. By the way - I agree with Scottish Geologist that the old FC forum was better. It was not my decision to change it.
Rather than offering to engage in what would probably be a very interesting conversation where Cartomancer's extensive and impressive knowledge could be of a great help to anybody's curiosity - you use sarcasm and derision instead.What a nasty man you are.
Philip. As I have said many times before - you seem to read into statements things that are not there. There was no sarcasm nor derision in my question - only in your own head. And Tyler - I have no fear of Cartomancer - in fact his posts are ones I always read rather than skim over. They usually contain really interesting material.
This sort of anti-intellectualism is stifling.
Indeed. Including atheist anti-intellectualism.
He has in the past equated homosexuality with paedophilia:
Philip - yet another misrepresenation and misunderstanding. I asked - and I still ask - on what basis does an atheist state that paedophilia is wrong? Or bestiality? Or polygamy? It is a fair question and one that I have received different answers to. I would still like to know the answer. The fact that you can go from that to say I am equating paedophilia with homosexuality as though the two were synonymous is ridiculous. But somewhat typical of your anti-logical and emotive approach to arguing.
There are successful "secular" societies. Such as all of Scandinavia. They have the largest population of irreligious people. They avoid war and take care of their population.
Hellene - I have already answered your earlier point about where you are born determining your beliefs (including your atheism). And this about Sweden. You are again just repeating a myth - without any evidence. Actually Norway and Finland have high percentages of church goers - the Norwegians send more missionaries than any other Western country except the US. You will find that Belgium and France are actually more irreligious. As for avoiding war - you do know that Sweden is one of the major arms exporters in the world?
Herod died 4BC.A documented historical fact.
And your point is?
In his "Dawkins Letters" he refers to Paul Davies' book "The Goldilocks Enigma" as making a case for theism, even though Davies is an atheist, and the book (I don't know if you are familiar with it) makes the same kind of arguments that The God Delusion does about "ultimate 747s", and Davies says that "... the concept of "God" runs into a logical and existential quagmire".What Robertson is saying is that he knows better than Paul Davies what the conclusion of his book should be. Neat, isn't it?
Steve this is not one of your better posts. I would not like to accuse you of deliberate misrepresentation but what I actually wrote was "Whilst Paul Davies is not a theist I have found him to be very fair and he does not dismiss theism - indeed he puts forward an excellent case for it". That is somewhat different from what you said. By the way if Davies is an atheist (which I had thought) then why is he endorsing Frances Collins book 'The Language of God in the following terms "Timely and incisive. Collins shows how our understanding of evolution, far from standing in the way of faith, reveals a universe of ever greater ingenuity and subtlety"? I think Davies, if he is an atheist, is fair and an intellectual atheist. Whereas Dawkins and some of the people here are emotional atheists and cannot be fair because they just react and emote all the time.
There is winning the audience over which is what Lennox did (in a mostly christian audience I must add). Then there is winning an argument based on what was actually said. I repeat, Hitchens cannot lose an argument with someone who believes in the virgin birth. My questions to you on the virgin birth still remained unanswered by the way.
Jamcam - glad you are enjoying the discussion. If you want more then I will be debating with the secretary of the NSS in Edinburgh in September. Come along and join in... However I am quite astounded at your remark that the Usher hall was a mainly Christian audience. How could you possibly know that? GIven the vote at the beginning that was highly unlikely. Only 40% of the audience voted that the new atheism was not good for the new Europe. Never mind that not all of these 40% would be Christian - are you really suggesting that there were Christians stupid enough or Machievellian enough to either vote for atheism or say that they did not know! Lennox won the argument. The only reason that you cannot accept that is the same reason that for most of the regulars on this site, I will never be able to say anything sensible because anyone who believes in the virgin birth is de facto wrong. This is where you guys get in so much trouble logically and in debate. You keep going round in circles. You argue that there cannot be an almighty God because there cannot be virgin births or resurrections. You miss out the rather obvious point that if there is an almighty God then virgin births and resurrections are perfectly logical. Your starting and finishing point is that there is no God. It is a belief. Actually I'll let you into a secret. I know Lennox well and before the debate we discussed some of the things that could be said. One of these was simply to mention the resurrection and watch how Hitchens (like RD) would respond. He fell for it beautifully - beginning his response with a dig at anyone who could believe in a resurrection. The closed mind was there for all to see (except of course for those who shared that closed mind) . I still find it incredible that there are those who expect us to believe that we exist in another universe with a green moustache and somehow think this is more logical than believing that an almighty God could raise the dead! By the way I agree that Hume's argument is powerful - but it is not final.
There is all the difference between the interactions of those who are regulars on a site, and those who post only to provoke, such as Robertson.
Steve - I don't post only to provoke. That would be too easy. And pointless. I know that what I post will be provocative - because of the emotional and angst ridden nature of many on this site. But I cannot be held responsible for other peoples hatred, bile and irrationality.
I refuse it. I say it goes to Diacanu, who has a style and poetry and passion it has taken me a long while to figure out what it reminded me of. Many may disagree, but the spiky poetry of Diacanu at his best reminds me of Sylvia Plath. I feel lucky I know so many people here who are so lucid and knowledgeable and eloquent.
I don't want to interfere with your inhouse spat except to say that you would advance your cause and improve your argument a lot more if you listened to Jamcam and others. As for Diacanu being a model for others to follow - are you serious?! Take this as an example of his wit/reason. Is this really how you want to be perceived?
"Some people need to grow some nerve and speak up for themselves regardless of what they think others might think, and if they can't, well fuck 'em. No, this routine of patting yourself on the back for being a rebel, without doing anything to try to fix the perceived problem makes you a cunt.
Okay, you didn't get on the big Robertson dogpile, good for you.
What's your solution?
Piss in everyone's eye in contempt?
Wow, good for you.
What a hero.How boring.
As boring as what you damn.'
And there is much more in the same vein. I thought if I used Diacanu as an example of this site you would all be complaining. Now you want to claim him as one of your best. Thanks. Yeah Steve - 'he chooses words with precision"!
Is it fair to say that you can know of Jesus only through personal revelation, or from the gospels? If you know him by personal revelation, then there is nothing, I expect, anyone can say that would make you doubt your inner conviction; but then would you allow that those of us who have not been vouchsafed such a revelation have no reason to accept anything learned that way?
Poly - great question. I would say that it is fundamentally through the Gospels. And having studied them for many years I would say that all this issues you raise are relatively easily dealt with. I also agree that the Bible is not a text book of science - and it was never intended to be. However modern science does need moral guidelines- where will you get those from?
Myself, I find the notion of "bad words", to be as childish and superstitious as religion itself.
Diacanu - Really? So you would be quite happy to see racist terms like 'nigger' being used on this website? There are after all no 'bad words'. In anatheist world how can there be good and bad anyway. Surely these are just social constructs?
Anyway better go... another day another dollar..another round of Papist bashing...more death threats to deal with... (just to keep Billy happy - an impossible task I know but we believe in miracles) .. and more seriously, lots of people to bring the Good News to. Hopefully one day you will discover it all for yourselves...
Comment #232962 by David A Robertson on August 19, 2008 at 1:25 am
You quote David as saying: "By the way I do accept that evolution happened." In another posting he says something like: "Even if evolution were true, it wouldnt affect my faith" These two statements are inconsistent
Scottish geologist. Why?
Ah David has made a reappearance. Hmmm, so no answers as usual, just the usual inane gobbledygook.
Vaal - of course. That is what you hear. Anything that disagrees with you must be gobbledygook because otherwise you might have to think and to come out of your comfort zone. The rest of your post argues against things I have not said. So perhaps it might be better if you learned to read before making such facetious comments.
Ever been to Sweden? /blockquote>
Tyler - yes - many times. One of my favourite countries. And yet another atheist myth (usually espoused by people who know nothing of it and have never been there) that it is a society that is based upon atheism. In actual fact Sweden is a country that has been shaped and moulded by Christianity. Until 2000 it had a state church which the vast majority of Swedes still belong to. It does have a strongly secular society and most Swedes seem to have rejected the doctrinal roots of their Christian heritage. And indeed this is beginning to have effects - I read a review of a new book on Sweden which suggests that the Swedish dream is beginning to unravel. So I am still waiting for an example of a society based upon atheism which manages to get people to work together. Surely it should not be that difficult?No, that is not it. Having read through the exchanges here I think you are not very prepared to have your faith questioned. Your positions are not well thought out and you have not examined their implications very throughly. .
Bonzai - I accept that is your perception. It almost has to be. For the record I am always prepared to have my faith questioned - that is why I meet with people of different faiths (including the atheist one) and read lots of different books. I am sure that my positions are not as well thought out as they could be, but again it is part of your faith that anyone who disagrees with your rational, logical stance (which is of course the ONLY rational, logical stance) cannot be well thought out. For what it is worth - there are many, many things I do not know - which is why I cannot answer a lot of questions that come up. I should also say that there is very little 'questioning' of my faith that goes on here. Most of it is just accusation and emotion or completely irrelevant 'intalk'. . Shouting and abuse does not really constitute questioning. I find that Steve Zara (usually) and others like him, really do question and give me a lot to think about.Your problem is that when being called out on your not well thought out positions, you dig in the heel because you have to play the role of the teacher. You are the theologian, you are supposed to know it al
This is a bizarre statement which again displays the tendency that some have to argue out of ignorance. A theologian is NOT supposed to know it all. In fact a good theologian will realise that the more he or she knows, the more they are aware of their ignorance.This really interests me, how come 29,999 other Christian sects are wrong about god but your lot somehow managed to find the "truth" - has it never crossed your mind that you are in fact wrong?
Philip - once again. Arguing from ignorance against a postion that I do not hold. I do not think that all the Christian churches are wrong. And I frequently wonder if we have it right on many things. In fact at this years General Assembly I stated that part of our practice and belief was wrong and should be changed.And if Robertson would be born in Saudi Arabia, he would believe Jesus was just another prophet preparing the way for the arrival of Mohammed. And Judas was crucified instead of Jesus, so no resurrection. Well 'evidence' ala Robertson is not very strong isn't it !?
And if I was born in an atheist society I would believe there was no God. Your point is? We are all influenced by our upbringing. Thankfully one of things that the good Lord has given us is a mind to think and a will to choose. Although if you are a cultural or genetic predeterminist (like many on this site seem to be) you clearly do not believe that. I have always thought is quite funny that atheists seem to think that whereas everyone else in the world believes what they believe because of culture and upbringing - atheists alone make free, rational choices without any cultural conditioning!There seems little point in engaging with David Robertson. He really can't see the inconsistencies and absurdity of his position, and prefers to repeat the 'fundamentlist atheist' mantra ad nauseum rather than respond clearly to questions.
Peacebeuponme - Of course. I was so stupid. I was blind but now I see. Please lead me into the land of Enlightenment, the oasis of clearthinking. The trouble is that I don't see it. In fact it seems more like a fog of emotion, wishful thinking and the desperate attempt to avoid the implications of there being a God.Well, in that case, why call it faith at all? Surely the whole point of faith is that it has no need of evidence, or reason, but is rather a stong virtuous personal conviction, lauded precisely because it is uncynical, unsceptic and devoted?
Yes - that is the definition in the atheist dictionary - according to RD. But it is not the position that Christians hold. Still why argue against what is being really said - when you can just make up an argument to argue against? At least then you will have some change of winning!David Robertson: "you are all followers of Dawkins"
No Steve - not all. You put quotation marks as those I had said that. Please show me where the quote comes from - otherwise don't use quotation marks. I do not think that everyone on this site is a follower of Dawkins - although many act as though they are. Sychophantic would be a good word.
Comment #232946 by David A Robertson on August 19, 2008 at 12:53 am
If you like, please explain - in detail - why you are not a member of the Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox, United Reformed, Baptist or Methodist movements. Please feel to add in any or all of the other 38,000 denominations. Please explain why you have faith that your little splinter group is correct and all the others are wrong. Having done that, please explain why you do not believe any of the Mayan, Aztec, Hindhu, Pagan, Celtic, Greek, Sikh, Roman or Nordic myths.
Do you think I have all day? Actually I would be quite happy to belong to any Christian church which believed in Jesus and taught and practiced the Bible. I do not think that my group is correct and all the others wrong. This concept may be a little unfamiliar to you but I think there is room for variety and disagreement. As for the Mayan, Aztec etc I have looked at Hindu, Pagan, Celtic, Greek, Sikh, Roman and Nordic myths (not yet at Mayan or Aztec) - none of them compare with Jesus Christ.
Why do you prefer to believe the writings of ignorant superstitious individuals to 500 years plus of rigorous scientific enquiry?
It is scientifically wrong, historically inaccurate and full of more contradictions than a schizophrenics convention.
Irate - you believe what you want to believe and then just invent arguments which are nonsensical. I don't prefer the writings of ignorant superstitious individuals to 500 years of rigorous scientific inquiry. I accept the two books of Gods revelation - the creation (and the scientific study of it) and the Bible. 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.
You make outrageous claims about human 'sin' causing catastrophes (you wrote not all....are due to human sin thus implying that some are.)
For someone who has done a Masters degree at Cambridge you are sadly lacking logic. Why is it outrageous to claim that some catastrophes are caused by human sin? I have already given one example - here is another. Climate change and global warming. If we continue, in our greed, to burn up fossil fuels at our current rate, it will accelerate global warming and cause a great catastrophe.
You mentioned grass dying. Are you honestly trying to say that no animals died before people sinned? If you are OK with evolution, then there must have been death and disaster before people sinned. It is as simple as that.You see, David, this is an example of how science and religion really do conflict. You just can't have an actual fall bringing things like disease and death into the world and have evolution over billions of years, unless you are prepared to say that the fall is entirely metaphorical. But then, if it is metaphorical, there was no point to the death and resurrection of Christ.
Steve - thanks. These are good and vital points. I believe certain things that you may regard (as would Ken Ham) as obviously contradictory. There was physical death before the fall (including animal). After the fall spiritual death came in. The key question is then - to what extent did that affect 'nature' and physical death. I think that there was a profound change. The natural order has been infected and poisoned. Actually there are many Christians (such as Francis Collins and Denis Alexander whose latest book, Creation or Evolution- do we have to choose? is just out) who would argue for both evolution and a fall.
Very telling how you choose to play the 'evidence' game with other systems of belief, while providing exactly zero evidence for your own. And very dishonest, too.
But Mark that is again hearing what you want to hear and not hearing what I am saying. The reason that I follow Christ is BECAUSE of the evidence. The fact that you have already determined that there can be no evidence is not sufficient for you to make the comments you do. Arguing with such a closed mind is like asking someone who is determined to keep their eyes shut, to look and see.
Ooooh, so one can tell if something's right or wrong by sheer opinion alone, eh? Cool! You see, I have read the Bible, read the history and examined the evidence and I do not think it is true. :-)
Damn, this is too easy!
Of course Goldy - its too easy when you don't bother to read what is said. Let me repeat again - you look at the evidence, then you think and then you make your mind up. I realise that for fundamentalist atheists the process is reversed but that is not the way that all of work.
All those speaking engagements will bump up the income nicely.
Q- sometimes comments made in ignorance are hilarious! You obviously do not know the Christian speaking circuit. Wheras Bill Clinton or Tony Blair might get $25,000 per speech, and RD will not exactly be cheap, yours truly is only too happy if my expenses get covered!
I'd love to see this worm man debate a Muslim scholar on the Koran. Let's see if he can justify his own disbelief in someone else's fairy tales.
Irate - done it several times already.
I would also be interested to know when real cancer came into the world.
Steve - so would I. Do you know? And do you know why cancer is apparently much more a Western disease? I would genuinely be interested in the answers to these questions.
And if you and I didn't have to pay a mortgage or rent etc. we could live quite happily on that sort of money. t
Poor Irate - you really are desperate to accuse. Actually I do have a mortgage - just renewing it today. The capitalists are going to screw me for another £200 per month. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether I do my work for the money. I do not. No more than RD wrote TGD for money.
Comment #232350 by David A Robertson on August 18, 2008 at 1:53 am
Jamcam,
I see that there are lots of posts since my last effort. Without reading them I will take a guess that many of them are in response to what I have written - or rather in response to me. Often what I have written is ignored. Without reading the posts let me take a guess at what they contain - such is the boring repetitiveness and the unwillingness of some of our atheist friends to actually listen and engage with what has been said - that I feel able to do this.
1) There will be lots of questions which are actually accusations - and when I do not answer them all (either because they are off topic, or just too many of them, or even because I cannot) there will be cries of triumph and derision. Even when I do answer this will just lead to another unrelated question. It is not dialogue - just fundies shouting their beliefs.
2) There will be loads of insults and swear words from people whose vocabulary is as limited as their intellectual ability.
3) There will be an analysis of my motives which will include the following - he's out to make money, get attention and publicity for himself, try to unite his church by focusing on a common enemy, obcessed with Dawkins etc .
4) And then there is the bizarre - somehow the Pope will be brought in, the Tsunami, King Herod etc.
What you will rarely find is any kind of serious interaction or any attempt to deal with the issues. Which is why my last observation is true. There will be objections to my use of the term fundamentalist atheist - as those this was an obvious oxymoron. I do not think that all atheists are fundamentalists but RD is and so are many of his fans/followers. The absolute certainty that you are right, the constant repetition of mantras as though they were absolute truth, the inability to listen, the invective against anyone who dares to question your obvious truth etc. If it walks like a duck, quakes like a duck and swims like a duck then I guess it is most likely that it is a duck. If it speaks like a fundamentalist, emotes like a fundamentalist, and shouts like a fundamentalist then it must be a rational, clear thinking atheist on RD net!
Anyway lets come on to the posts and see what we can find....apologies if I do not reply to everyone. Most of the rude and ignorant comments I will just leave. To respond to them is only to add fuel to the fire.
Of course you believe in zombies. DO you deny the Gospel story that many people rose from their graves and appeared to many people in Jerusalem? Of course, such a story would have made headline news for centuries if it had happened, yet curiously history seems to have forgotten all about this mass resurrection, witnessed by many people in Jerusalem. But Robertson says he has EVIDENCE for this story.
Steven - I do not believe in zombies. I believe in resurrection. And I have no evidence for the resurrected after the resurrection of Christ - other than the Bible. There are many many things that we personally do not have evidence for - that does not mean that they are not true. Nor does it mean that no evidence exists.
As regards your posting re Lakeland. I have just finished writing a lead article which points out that Lakeland is a sham and an embarrassment to Christianity which should be repudiated by all right thinking Christians. It is pretty sick.
I will permit myself, Robertson, a wee thought that you are starting to prefer hanging out with rational atheists than with irrational, delusional, fundamentalist FCOS christians. It would be entirely natural, my good fellow. Shrug off your impossibly heavy, unjustifiable and pernicious baggage and take a look at what you've been missing.
Styrer - if you seriously think that asking for all Christians to be hospitalised puts you in the rational, tolerant camp then I think I prefer to live amongst the free thinking Christians!
Perhaps you could be explicit about which disasters are the result of specific sins.
Certainly Steve. My understanding is that the floods in Bangladesh were caused by human greed - the deforestation of the countryside resulting in far greater run off and floods.
So, I am asking you - when did the fall happen? When did cancer first appear in the world? Was it before humans appeared?
Steve - you clearly want to live in this black and white world where you have the answer for everything. That is not the world I live. I do not know when the fall happened. I do not know when cancer first appeared. And I do believe that the world was created good and that part of that goodness was that death existed - at least in some forms. For example grass died, seed was renewed etc. But you clearly think there can be only two alternatives - the fundamentalist creationist viewpoint and the fundamentalist materialist viewpoint. I am not convinced by either. By the way I do accept that evolution happened.
One might argue that if the historical evidence was sufficiently strong, then far more people would believe it.
Indeed - if one believed that people were really concerned about historical evidence and could be bothered to examine it. Most people could not care and have no interest in history. And to be frank many of the atheists I know already believe what they believe and just go to atheist books/websites to get ammunition to justify themselves and attack others. People just pick and choose what suits their already pre-determined beliefs (and I accept that many Christians do this as well).
Breathtaking. So was the Asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs the result of "their" specific sins, bearing in mind that hominids were not on the planet for another 65 million years. Was there a "Jesus" velociraptor?David, why don't you take a good look and actually listen to what you are saying. Do you actually believe that? I can't believe you are really that stupid and credulous. I don't even think you, in all seriousness, actually believe it.However, you should keep repeating the same fatuous nonsense, as it is the best way of reducing church numbers, and you are, although you have no idea, probably the best recruiter to atheism on this site.
Vaal - indeed it is breathtaking. Mainly because that is not what I said - in fact the opposite. AS for being the best recruiter to atheism on this site perhaps you could provide me with the evidence that I am recruiting for your movement? I could on the other hand introduce you to several people who were atheists who have either a) become Christians or b) have begun to have doubts about their atheism.
DR, your beliefs (better known as delusions) are total nonsense. Unfortunately, it is where you get your paycheck from, so you try holding up your house of cards with false supports. You really are a wank.
Mordacious - another one checked off. Its about money. Of course that is one of those atheist myths which provide succour and comfort to the True Believers- But it is not evidenced at all. Firstly my pay check is £18,000 per year - well below the national average wage in the UK. I could get other kinds of work which would be much more lucrative. Secondly the satisfaction I get from my work is that I believe it to be true and useful for society. If I believed otherwise I would resign immediately. Why live a lie? I understand that atheist heros like Bart Ehrman, Richard Holloway etc lived off the church whilst not believing the Bible, but please don't lump us all in with such hypocrisy.
No doubt he`s counting the loot in the collection plate as we speak.
Wow 8teist - thats a killer point. Such wit! Such insight! How will I cope?!
Rev. David Robertson - Why are you not a Muslim?
Irate - a whole paragraph without an expletive! Congratulations. Why am I not a Muslim? Because I have read the Koran, read the history and examined the evidence and I do not think it is true.
America, perhaps? Renouncing the monarchy and forming a democracy? Don't forget, 'one nation under god' was not stamped on currency there until 1955. Religion was not the cause of Americans to stand together for independence. Freedom was their cause. Freedom of British taxation, bureaucratic long-distance centralized rule, and subjugation. They no longer wished to bow to a 'divinely' appointed monarch.I think quite a few Americans worked together for that goal during the war of independence.
dirtyape - I'm afraid that it takes a special kind of ahistoricism and incredible special pleading (on the level of a flat earther) to argue that the US was founded as an atheist society on atheist principles. I guess the Pilgrim fathers were just confused! The fact that 11 of the 13 original states had established churches or that the vast majority of Americans were and are professing Christians, obviously have nothing to do with it! Please be serious. Try again and give me an example of an atheist society that has managed to get people to work together.
Well, I agree, of course, Steve. Hume's extinction of the supernatural was decisive and final. This is where my frustration lies - that wankers like Robertson parade themselves as "intellectuals" without acknowledging, or engaging with, ideas that have stood the test of time, and we're only talking philosophy here, not to mention the myriad of scientific disciplines that, with each passing decade, further pulverise the remaining shards of religious buffoonery.Mild, moi? I want to kick something! And what I really want to kick is, indeed, the delusion and ignorance of theism, but more so the arrogance of the Robertson set in believing that they still have something sensible to say.
Of course Laurie. Its an easy defence. Anyone who dares to disagree with you is an arrogant buffoon who does not realise that they have nothing to say. If you keep repeating the mantra often enough perhaps one day it will come true. Have you actually read David Hume? Or is it just a comfort to you to 'know' that 'Hume's extinction of the supernatural was decisive and final'. I have discussed Hume with several people and have found that John Lennox has by far the best grasp of Hume and why he is not infallible and final.
Robinson rarely answers a question directly and is a master at obfuscation just like Karl Rove. Both are dangerous because they feed on the week minds.
Bob- Just proved your first statement wrong. I answer lots of questions directly. Of course what you mean is that I do not answer questions the way you want or that I do not answer the 'when did you stop beating your wife' questions. By the way is Karl Rove not an atheist? Or is that rumour wrong? Still at least we can spell....
I think such people use religion to put themselves in a position of control over others. Sometimes this may be for good intentions - they believe that people must have a belief in God to have meaningful and moral lives.My interpretation is that Robertson is trying to perform a balancing act: trying not to annoy the relatively rational Christians or the creationists too much. He is also trying to keep people with such incompatible views in the same Church by getting them to focus on a common enemy - atheism, and especially Dawkins.
Steve - stick to your questions rather than this rather silly and unsubstantiated analysis. You obviously have no idea how biblical Christianity works! I have no control over anyone - and I would not want any. I have more than enough difficulty with self control! And you clearly do not know me...I have no interest whatsoever in providing a 'balance' act in the church. I think the church is in a mess and needs to be shaken up - not balanced! Besides which do you really think that most church people read RD net or are bothered by atheism? Not at all. But why bother with what is real when you can just make up your own truth?
Add to that heady mi the fact that his church has a traditional rural base, but is trying to be relevant in the cities without losing its "roots" - you get a right cocktail of trying to keep everyone happy.
Scottishgeologist - another box ticked. Sadly a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Just to let you know that the Free Church is generally in decline in most areas but the areas where we are growing is in the cities and amongst students and the young. And I have no intention of trying to keep everyone happy. I know that is impossible. And I am more interested in truth.
David I am amazed at your ability to count thousands of hands within a few seconds. 35%? 25%? Really? Your brain must be a computer of huge processing capacity. I was at the debate and couldn't have done the same. Your level of confidence in the accuracy of the percentiles is truly astounding. I just can't agree with those figures
Jamcam - you should ask before accusing. I did not count. I could not. But I asked the staff and the people who organised the event who were at the front. And if you were not able to process the figures and could not see how can you say that you cannot agree with the figures? Of course they are approximate but the trend within them was agreed by all.
As for the people who changed their minds and decided to vote against Hitchens I have a small conspiracy theory. Those who were unsure (i.e. in the don't know camp) at the start were all christians. Isn't it odd that there were no "don't knows" at the end? This led me to wonder if it hadn't been planned. Anyway I've said it once and I'll say it again, I was disappointed in the folk from Edinburgh. Poor atheist turn-out.
Up to now you have had my respect but this point is a little desperate. Are you really saying that it was a Christian conspiracy? Sorry we are not that Machiavellian nor organised enough. There were don't knows at the end - about 5-10%. By the way maybe there was a 'poor atheist' turnout in Edinburgh because there are not all that many atheists there?
Also. Will you please stop using expressions like "the atheist faith" Its just daft and I suspect you know it./blockquote>
Another one checked off. No it is not daft. It is actually a good description of your position. It is a faith position in just the same way as Christianity is - although Christianity has more evidence and reason behind it.There are also people who post here who have had a truly terrible experience of religion. I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to warmly shake the hand of someone like Robertson (to exaggerate what you are saying).
Steve - I think this is an excellent point. This is for many people a kind of therapy session for those who have been abused by religion. That explains a great deal of the anger and emotion - which is entirely understandable.Vaal, I dont see how he can comeback without digging a deeper hole for himself. I am truely disgusted with this behaviour and giving serious thought to sending his comment to those in authority in his church. If they have any integrity, they might want to tell him to get his act together. He can say what he wants as long as it is true, but lying like that just disgusts me
Billy - sorry but I did not tell a lie. I did receive a death threat on this site - which was allowed to remain for over a week - despite my asking for it to be removed. I was going to speak in Northern Ireland and the comment was made that the Real IRA should be told that this anti-Catholic bigot was coming over to speak. Specifics like date and venue were then given. As someone who once received a specific threat about the IRA (in a previous life) I found it sad and disturbing. It may well have been a joke (as I am sure it was) but that does not take away from the fact that it existed. Nor for the one that exists on the Lennox thread - 'seriously ...Lennox should be taken out and shot in the back of the head'.
And what you do not address Billy is that my point was about RD's 'lying for atheism' in the Scotsman article. He gave the impression that this website was frequently written on by creationists who were rude and swore, whilst the cool clear rational thinkers were more positive. It really was an 'Alice in Wonderland' moment, for anyone who has ever bothered to be on this site.I do not think Christianity is going to get anywhere by denigrating modern scientists--all the evidence is against it--it needs instead to persuade us of the truth value of its story: the validity of its myth and worldview.
Polydactyl - yours is a great post and worthy of being a thread all on its own. To answer briefly - why Christianity? Because of a) Jesus Christ and b) its world view most fits the evidence that we have. And I agree totally that Christianity should not denigrate modern scientists. Many modern scientists are Christians - I have more scientists in my congregation than any other profession. I think of people like Frances Collins, the head of the human genome project, who finds no contradiction between his science and his Christianity. It is atheists like Dawkins and people like Ken Ham who both try to make science and Christianity opposed. Dawkins does so, not for scientific reasons, but for philosophical and emotional reasons.DR knows that he cannot explain why god is neccessary and he knows that he cannot explain suffering
Coldfusion - please stop telling me what I do and do not know. I am perfectly happy to explain and do so often.Should we be so hard to Robertson ? Just imagine you are in his position : you have to earn your daily living in a small Christian highland cult avoid to offend anybody of whatever deluded believe fraction to stay in business, have to stay in the limelight by frequent 'quarrels' with atheists just to earn your daily bread from donations of a deluded flock willing to sponsor their preacher. What do you expect ? Honest discussions, statements what he really believes ?
In a situation even worse than a politician you can only expect cheap hit and run propaganda, out of context quotations, spin doctored arguments ... but never a honest discussion.
Another box ticked....Roland is your argument so weak that you have to make up things to justify your position. You may not agree with what I say but let me assure you that I really do believe it. And let me point out that the Free Church is not a cult and my congregation mostly consists of internationals and lowlanders. Nor do they give me a penny for arguing with atheists - in fact probably most would prefer I got on with my job and did not waste time with you guys. None of what you state is true and yet why should that stop you? If you say it loud enough perhaps your fellow atheists will believe it as well. Meanwhile for those who care about truth....I would like to know what kind of faith it is that he has if not a blind one?
Whitepearl - One based on evidence, reason, logic, experience etc.Robertson, your lot think the pope is the antichrist. How are you any different? Oh, that's right you're not!
Yet another box checked. I think I must be a prophet! Billy is back with his Pope obcession. Just quite what this has to do with anything other than Billy's cultural Protestantism I have no idea. But for the umpteenth time let me repeat that I do not think that the Pope is the anti-Christ, nor does my church. In fact if you want to broaden your minds a little bit and come out of your atheist closed minded closet then I would strongly recommend the Pope's latest book - Jesus of Nazareth. Brilliant.You guys know waaaay too much about early Christianity. A sign of a mis-spent youth.
A doctorate in medieval history will do that for you.
Cartomancer - just curious but why would a doctorate in medieval history make you an expert in early Christianity? What was your doctorate in?
Well thats all for today. I will try to return later on this week (just to preempt the other main complaint that I do not spend every hour of the day on this website). I don't expect much but one can hope to be pleasantly surprised.
Comment #231744 by David A Robertson on August 17, 2008 at 1:35 am
David,Christianity is a superstition ,what else can you call in organisation that requires its participants to believe without evidence, virgin birth , (for want of a better word) zombies,flat earth and invisible entities that inhabit the sky.I also agree 100% with the second half of your sentence,we just don`t need religion to accomplish it.As to evidence to evolution if you choose not to accept scientific fact,provide your own evidence that refutes it.RD.net is an open forum ,there is no censorship of peoples views ,you may not like it but thats how it is.t
8teist - a few points -
1) Christianity does not require belief without evidence, nor do we believe in a flat earth or zombies. All you are doing is reflecting your own prejudices in order to justify them.
2) You want human beings to work together. Can you evidence a society based on atheism where that has happened?
3) Whats your problem with evolution? As I have already said I have no real issue with it. If it is true it would not make one whit of difference to my faith.
4) No censorship? Really. Why then have I been banned four times? And why were the quotes I used in my book all removed? With the result that I am now accused of lying for citing posts that do not exist (thankfully I kept a copy to help the conspiracy theorists).
David - I second 8teist's comment. Just what would you call Christianity to distinguish its epistemology from that of astrology, say?
Laurie - I would call Christianity a historical evidence based belief based upon the person and work of Jesus Christ. Do you really see no difference between that and astrology? Or is it not more the case that you have to lump all non atheist belief systems under the same heading so that you can just dismiss them. Does your faith not require you to automatically dismiss any opposite point of view?
I suspect DR won't answer a real questiont
Whitepearl - wrong again. Unless you mean DR won't answer according to the answer we want. Then you will always be right!
They *always* come back to incredulity, which, when that is pointed out, makes them do logical backflips.
Laurie - yet another sweeping generalisation which has just been proven wrong. I have not mentioned incredulity at all - although now you mention it I am a bit incredulous at the lack of reason, logic and argument in this thread.
I really just hate how they are always trying to "prove" things when their entire religion is based on "faith". 100% Blind faith. Why even bother with trying to prove anything?
Whitepearl....yet another own goal. You argue against a position that we do not hold. You are arguing against yourself. Please have the self respect and the intellectual honesty to argue against what your opponents are saying - not what you want them to say. We do not believe in blind faith.
Steve - welcome back from your break. We have been over this many times. The simple thing is to read the article for yourself. And things are not just black and white. I wrote the article because there were some really foolish people who were saying things like 'the Tsunami is God's judgement upon people who were being wicked'. The fact is that disasters do happen. But they are not usually the direct result of specific sins. However do I believe that the Fall affected everything - including the environment. Yes. I believe that what humans do, does affect the environment - whether floods in Banglasdesh being caused by deforestation or human greed affecting other parts of the planet. But I was asked a specific question about the Tsunami - which I answered. The fact that some atheists here lack the subtility, intelligence or the honesty to understand that I was not saying that the Tsunami was Gods wrath on a specific group of people, is not really my problem.
3. Christians should be re-named 'patients' and treated to a good dose of in-hospital care, well out of reach of children.
Styrer - if this is all I have to argue against then it is little wonder that atheist struggle in debate! Such tolerance, rationality and understanding! And yet again - whilst a few extremists fundamentalists like yourself call for hospitalisation of Christians, the 'moderate' atheists stay silent.
Comment #231723 by David A Robertson on August 16, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I have often wondered why it is taking so many books just to attempt to refute one book.
Down the years I have read other books putting the case for disbelief, so what's so special about TGD? Why the furore?
what are your thoughts on this?
Alan,
I guess it is a kind of back handed complement which illustrates the significance and importance of TGD. There are of course many books about atheism but I think that it is because TGD is so popular that some feel it is a 'publishing opportunity to respond, others are afraid and want to reassure their particular constituency, whilst yet others may feel they have something useful to contribute.
f you believe that religion and science can co-exist in a consistant way - Where's the demarcation between them? Where does science 'hand over' to religion?t
Apathy - I don;t think there is a demarcation. Science does not hand over to religion - both are supposed to be about truth and should not contradict one another.
How many of those 25% were religious - so would side with the religious person, no matter what? By majority, how big are you talking about?
Did Hitchens really concede, or did he just agree with something lennox stated (the bible is an old book, being an example of a point they could both agree on)
Apathy - As I posted on an earlier thread. There were 1500 people. Before the debate the voting was approx 35% for the motion (the new Europe would prefer the new atheism), 40% against and 25% don't know. After it was 40%, 50% and 10%. Your first statement does not make sense - why would religious people vote that they did not know whether atheism was a good thing for Europe? And Hitchens conceded in that he admited the vote at the end was against him - not that he thought Lennox was right. What is striking about RD and other atheists who were there is their stunning silence since the event. It speaks volumes. If Hitch had done what was clearly expected - wiped the floor with Lennox - I am sure we would have heard about it.
It has been drawn to my attention that you had suggested that the tsunami of 2004 was a result of god's wrath for the all the debauchery in the world. Is this true? would you like to comment?
Yes - complete nonsense. My article was written precisely against the nonsense that the Tsunami was a direct result of bad behaviour by people.
David, I had no intention of debating you so sorry for challenging and insulting you. I learned long ago that arguing with obsessed believers is useless. The only believers who can be turned around in a convenient period of time are the ones who have never given their religion much thought, i.e., the ones that feel no need for prayer, church, spirituality, but have just been going with the flow.
Kelly - what a wonderful admission. You can only turn around people who don't think. I could not have put it better myself!
I am an athiest and I have no faith, other than in Human Beings being able to rise above superstition and working together.
Evolved - that is some faith! What is your evidence for this? And as a Christian I too am totally opposed to superstition (including the superstition that religion is all thats wrong with human beings) and also believe that human beings should work together.
And if David Robertson is still reading this thread, I would like you to know that there are probably others around here besides myself who think the childish postings from a certain number of individuals on this forum are completely without merit, regardless of anything you have or have not said, ever.
And I strongly suspect that this post and my previous one will elicit more of the same.
Core, Thank you. I fully realise and accept that RD net is not representative of all atheists and that there are a considerable number who are embarrased by much of what goes on here. As regards the White Pearl - all I asked for her, or anyone else to post on our website, is not that they agree with us, but that there posts contain some substance and do not consist of telling people how stupid they are. Our forum before was ruined by being taken over by people whose eccentricities, emotional anger and inability to express themselves made the whole thing deeply unedifying. Perhaps RD net should take note.
27.