651. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69507 by BillySands on September 11, 2007 at 2:09 pm

- Doubt it. I'll lay odds of 1/100 that within a few minutes we will have the Pope, I once went to a Scottish Church meeting which was terrible etc. It used to be sweet. Not its just become obcessive. Best ignored.

HA HA HA Wee flea, you are sooooo funneee, please stop it, by nuts have expoloded.
Nice to see you using the time honoured biblical tradition of making predictions after the event. Gosh, If I'm obsessive, maybe I should be writing a book about David's book and posting on his site - despite the censoring!
Hey Dave, I heard you met a rude atheist once (that you provoked) and haven't shut the fuck up about it since

It's quite disturbing the levity with which you treat your church's involvement in these matters. Still, you have made homophobic comments here before, so I'm not suprised

SG does raise an interesting point, these churches are facilitating the teaching of frothing mouthed fundie hate - quite disgusting really and David is allowing it.

I hate to say this but I agree with you

Very telling comment on David's anti Atheist prejudices.

this is one Free Church he will never be allowed to speak in (at least not without someone sensible to give a rebuttal). I actually think that the majority of Free Churches would not allow him.

Ah, censorship, imagine RD saying he wont lets creationists post on this site. The problem is David, Ham reads the bible properly. Where on earth does the bible talk of evolution?
Convince me that the bible is evolution friendly, and I'll even help you refute it - shame you dont do proper debate like Mark T does.

If possible could you do me a big favour. Send me your refutation of his material? I am editor of our denominations magazine and I would like to run a whole issue on the creation/evolution debate. If I am to critique Ken Ham I need as much real info as I can get.

That what I like to see, someone who has clearly investigated what he claims to believe and is able to defend it himself. Too stupid to do it yourself? If you cant rebut it, how do you know he is wrong? And the bible does say nothing about evolution. Can it be reality is finally dawning? Science good, bible shit. I say keep up he good work Ken, you are preaching the true biblical message and showing its absurdity

How about puting your money where your mouth is then and present some evidence for God. i guess if you refuse, you are disobeying god : "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," 1 Peter 3:15. You can look up the definitions of the last couple of words on line if you want, because I dont think they mean what you seem to think they mean.

And yes I read Grayling. In my view the worst of the New Atheist publishing. If ever anyone is a flea then a man who rehashes six short essays and puts them in a book charging $15 is one. His chapter three is wrong on almost every count.

$15? have they got a different currency in Dundee? It's only about £5-6. DOES ANYONE ELSE SUSPECT dAVE HASN'T READ IT AND HAS ONLY READ AMAZON REVIEWS?

J
Funny that you improved his book by writing the word bollocks, I improved his vitriolic rant by mumbling the word bollocks.

Really suprised the Flea wasn't there burning crosses and stuff

652. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69466 by BillySands on September 11, 2007 at 11:00 am

Hey Flea,
Just thought you would like to know, I spent last thursday evening in the company of a bunch of homophobic YECs. Where I hear you ask? Well, it Was Dowanvale free church of Scotland in Partick. Tell me, are all wee frees like this? I went to see that that purveyor of gospel truth Ken Ham there. It was disgusting - all those aproving grunts at his homophobic teachings. Is this what they teach in your church? All I can say is I'm glad I wasn't wearing a celtic top - what with them believing the pope to be the antichrist and all that. Ehy weren't you there puting them right/ Oh that's right, you agree with them.
Catch you later dude.
VanYoungman You must have the second sight :-)

653. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69398 by BillySands on September 11, 2007 at 5:47 am

Better still God could make Pi equal just 3?

Strange you should mention that Lee, according to the word od god, Pi does indeed = 3 http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/math.html#pi

Praize Quetz for he put this question in your mind. Lets have some Assam

654. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #69271 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 9:14 am

Some interesting points. I posted it on a Christian friend's blog. That should stir things up a bit.
The typical christian respose will be some thing like "but it gives us hope".
Stem cell research gives us all hope, and it is more likely to be realised

655. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69265 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 8:28 am

Seems eminently reasonable to me, these were presumably bronze age people who may have come across others with iron weapons.

Actually, that is another problem, not only is God not then omnipotent*, this all supposedly happened in the middle bronze age. Probably what was happening was the Jewish propaganda machine were saying that they were going to wipe out their enemies, then they failed. I believe later they put it down to idol worship or something, but god did clearly say that he would give them the promised land. I think something similar happened to gods promise to make solomon's desendents sit for ever on the throne of David. There has been no such king since Zedekiah's reign ended in 587/6 BCE. Again the bible writers had to make excuses for gods unequivocal promise being broken. Will need to look into this more.

* Something struck me recently. Is it possible for god to make square circles or make 2+2=71 while keeping the values the same? Therefore, there are somethings he cant do.

656. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69263 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 8:17 am

Philip,
Good old Zeus, he used to like shooting his bolt and getting virgins pregnant. One such child was Dionysis who could turn water into wine and returned from the dead.
As Justin Martyr said: "When we say that the Word, who is the first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." (First Apology, ch. Xxiv)

Anyone else thinking ripoff? (and I'm not referring to a cheap circumsicion here :-) )

657. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69242 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 6:20 am

Hi Lee,

The whole sun stopping thing would have made sense to the Hebrews. To them the universe was geocentric. The sun was though to have 3 winows that allowed it to enter the sky and three that allowed it to exit. The position of these accounted for the seasons. If you have time, read 1Enoch. That goes into more details about Hebrew cosmology. In fact, Jude quotes from this book as though it were inspired. How wrong could god have been?

Here is one of my favorite strange verses:

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
— Judges 1:19

Think what they could have done to god if they had Panzer VIs or Daleks

658. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69215 by BillySands on September 10, 2007 at 3:12 am

Hi Mark, You are getting a real workout here. Theo is back not a moment too soon.

I just want to comment some points here

Firstly, the existence of life itself, in all its vast variety, very beautifully but delicately balanced in relation to the physical environment, strikes me as demanding far more careful consideration than (e.g.) RD gives it in TGD

One problem here is that environments change and species go extinct (although change can drive speciation) Natural selection accounts for adaptation. Before we pick this up, it would be helpful if you could tell us your understanding of the way natural selection works, and how important it's role is in shaping organisms - that should make sure we know where each other stands on the subject.
Also, what is your view on the idea that all animals were vegetarian before the fall? How do you fit adaptation into this, when T rex or Carcharinus megaladon were clearly adapted to predation, as are lions today. What about parasites that can live in no other way than on or in the bodies of other animals?
What about soft water fish, such as the Discus? These would not survive a global flood - they can be hard enough to keep alive in well maintained aquaria. How could they have adapted to soft water and survive the flood?

but it seems to me that evolutionary theory doesn't have any obvious place even to begin to discuss how or why we possess minds at all, far less minds capable of the staggeringly complex tasks we do without apparent effort, yet take so much for granted. By contrast, Genesis 1 says that humankind was made "in the image of God", implying that we are given some (albeit limited) measure of the capabilities of the creator; I see the mind, and more particularly, human intellectual capabilities, as part of what that description is about.

This seems somewhat circular, in that you are using thebible to define reality. However, we have given you some reasons why our mind gives us an advantage. As has also been pointed out, other animals can solve problems too. It seems that you decide - without giving justification - that humans are the cut off point of what constitutes being made in the image of god (again circular). You claim that we are given some limited capabilities, but so then are octopi abd squirrels. Would you claim that they are made in the image of god too?

Again, we come to the who created the creator argument. It is circular reasoning to say that he always existed, because you have decided that he exists. Moreover, without the bible, you cant argue against a created creator. I personally thing the fact we dont know does not provide a reason to believe in god. I could be anything and our current knowlegde is so limited. To me, it is a god of the gaps arguement.

659. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68903 by BillySands on September 9, 2007 at 4:02 am

Hi Mark, I hope you didn't think I meant predictable in a bad way. You actually did not follow the standard Christian response here, which is good. One of the things i like about having you here is that you do genuinely make me have to be thorough. Any way, the word you refer to in Gen 1:20 is "uwph", defined in strongs thus: from uwph; a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings), often collectively bird, that flieth, flying, fowl. The word is clearly associated with named birds in lev. 11:13. In Lev 17:13, the word appears again associated with fowl that contain blood (rules out insects etc arguing haemolymph is blood in this context would be strange). However, in lev11:20 we have the word used to convey something that creeps on all fours. These cant be insects, these creep on all sixes and there is a specific word for bat "atalleph". It is possible that to the zoologically ignorant though, that a bat is just a funny bird. It looks like the hebrew is far from conclusive yet again.

Do you agree though that the other verse I quote refers to all living things? I presume in your view, sea creatures died too, but they are not specifically mentioned, then we have the problem of pressure and the likelyhood a tree would survive. I find it telling it was an olive leaf the bird found. Not an elm, a eucalyptus, bambooshoot or mahogany leaf.

Perhaps we could shift from tyre to the flood if you want. The evidence is very clear that it did not happen.

Do you think that some animals were extict before the flood then?

660. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68738 by BillySands on September 8, 2007 at 11:18 am

Mark, lets look a bit more at Ezekiel 26:12 in context:

"For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and a great army. 8 "He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you. 9 "The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 "Because of the multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached. 11 "With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground. 12 "Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water." NASB

This is describing events relating to Nebuchadnezzar as outlined in verse 7. It is telling of the comming destruction by the Babylonians. verse 12 is clearly linked temporally to this event, therefore the casting of buildings into the sea relates to this period, not that of Alexander. It is reasonable to assume that lay means to throw in an act of destruction, not construction. Furthermore, if we read on, it talks about reducing tyre to a bare rock (v14). Clearly the destruction refers to the Island, which never happened

661. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68670 by BillySands on September 8, 2007 at 4:06 am

Too much to catch up with at the o, but briefly,

Billy, you committed a basic error by not completing the quote. Let me do that for you:


... upon the face of the ground; both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth.
There is no mention of vegetation, which while you might suppose from the KJV's translation "substance" could be included, evidently from context is not counted as "living substance" in the sense you presume.

No basic error here Mark, I am aware what the rest says. It is just giving examples. Pterodactyls are not specifically mentioned either. By your logic, that would mean they are not living substances. I could just have easily given you Gen 6:17"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish..
I can guess your response, I am prepared :-)

662. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68491 by BillySands on September 7, 2007 at 9:45 am

But that is not inconsistent with the Bible account! According to the detail in Genesis 8:11, at least one tree (and presumably in fact, many trees) survived the flood...

Interesting point Mark. However, Genesis 7:23 "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground"
Also, the oldest bristle cone pines occur at an upper limit of 3354 metres. The flood covered everest, so Prometheus must have been under at least 5500 metres of water. That is a pressure of around 533 atmospheres, or about a ton per sq inch. It's just not going to survive. I briefly checked, but couldn't find any info, but assuming a fllod occurred and it survived, it should be recorded in its rings. That of course would not prove the flood (other climatic factors could be responsible), but absence of such a record would disprove the flood

663. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68375 by BillySands on September 7, 2007 at 3:16 am

Hi Epeeist,

Loved the picture of the monkey spanking the creationist.

Ham also mentioned a fossil spark plug as evidence of a young earth. debunked here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html
It just gets wierder and wierder

664. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68278 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Just when I whant to go to bed, another post appears :-(

But have you never asked yourself - given your standpoint (I presume) that evolution by natural selection is the reason why living things have the properties they do – why:
(a) human beings can see the stars at all;

Well you try competing in this world wearing a blindfold for a day and see how far you get

(b) we have a consciousness to know that we are seeing the stars;

Intelligence allows communication. communication allows cooperation or planning things, such as setting traps for food, finding food, out witting predators/competitors etc

(c) we are endowed with the intellectual and physical capabilities sufficient for us, by the development and application of technology, to observe that in fact there are apparently enormous numbers of stars out there;

See above. You cant deny that technology - even as simple as making clothes from animal skins allows us to exploit our enviroment and exploit new ones

(d) despite our obvious inability to mentally grasp those numbers in any physical (unary) sense, we have minds that enable us to easily contemplate and work mathematically with such huge numbers, including the simple but potent mechanism of based number representation (e.g. decimal);

See above

(e) we can create poetic language to describe the universe and invoke emotion in others by doing so, even by reference to such seemingly remote and intangible objects as stars;

Girls like that stuff, probably because it implies intelligence and good social skills, indicating a good provider

(f) and all that despite the fact that, apart from casting tiny amounts of light on us at night, the stars do not interact with us in any meaningful way, at the level of our day-to-day lives?

They do intreract; calendars and navigation for example, but why ponder them? Most likely a by product of all the advantages above. Have you considered why hallucinogenic drugs can alter your brain? If there was a soul, it should be independant of such physical influences

665. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68271 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Zaphod,
Interesting about changing the laws of physics. So much for the fine tuned hypothesis. Perhaps Epeist could comment more on this.
Philip
Normally more than one isotope is used. I think JC posted this befrore:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Young earth creationists also have the problem that we have tree ring records going back 30 000 years and the oldest tree in the world is older than the date of the flood.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/oldest-organisms-on-earth.html

I trust Quetz won his game

666. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #68266 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 3:04 pm

I've just been to see ken ham and I didn't think the night could get any more bizarre, but then I find devolved. Is that you running away again? Stop posting CMI junk and speak for yourself - show us that you actuallyunderstand what you are talking about, and stop lying, exon shuffling and gene duplication are not hotly debated. There is no debate, they do happen. Look up trypanosome vsg gene expression for starterd - i preume you can search for yourself - that way i'm of biasing you andI'm making you work for a change.

Do you start with the assumption that fairies dont exist?

found any dinosaurs?

Science actually tests things to see which interpretation is best. Creationsts ignore facts.

667. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68249 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Hi SWRB,
PMs are personal messages. You can send them by loging in to the forum, or click on the name of the person you wasnt to send one to on a thread and click on PM

Hi Mark, the paper sounds interesting, I'll be in touch

Philip, Ken Ham was awful, I have never disagreeed with anything so completely in my life. There was no question and answer session, so I left after his first talk. Just the usual dishonesty and Darwinism being the work of Satan stuff - atheists have no morals and if there is no god there is no basis for morality. The usual stuff. It was "interesting" to hear what he had to say on the bible concerning the 6 days, but he offered no evidence against evolution and kept asking why people reject the biblical message. To him, science is something that has to be wrong if it disagrees with the bible. To the rest of us, the evidence of science is why we deny the bible, but he doesn't seem interested in being lead by the evidence. He even accuses people of wanting to follow science - personally I think most people follow the evidence. Suprisingly, he gives no evidence that the bible is right. Funny that he has double standardshere. He says we havent observed radioactive decay from the beginning of time to show that the rate hasn't changed. Strange, whe he wasn't around to seecreation take place, but that's not a problem for him - he needs no evidece, he has the bible - praise the lord" it takes a denialist attitude to argue that decay rates may have changed. There is no evidence that they do, despite trying to make them change. Not suprisingly, he abused 14C dating and implies sceintists use it for dating fossils - which is a lie).
I'm suprised I didn't walk out in disgust.

Never saw the flea. Strange, because he claims to be an evolutionist, surely he would want to see the truth represented. Mind you, given the disharmony in the free church, maybe the ministers there dont talk to him. Maybe if Scottish Geologist is reading, he can inform us.

668. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68103 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 6:16 am

Found the tour dates for Ham

http://www.c-r-t.co.uk/events.htm

He may be near some of you guys at some point too

669. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68100 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 6:04 am

Thanks Epeeist,
I've got something else planned for tonight, but might see if I can rearrange it. I heard he was comming and was wanting someone to debate. Iconsidered volunteering untill I remembered how dishonest creationists tend to be. I also thought that I shouldn't give them credibility, and creationists in Scotland are not too much of a problem.
Wouldn't want my words being twisted and taken out of context on the internet now.

670. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68069 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 2:14 am

Hi Mark,
Suprisingly, I didn't think you would disagree with me on excavation.

we also have different views on the word rebuilt
I would like to know what you mean...

It seem that you interpret rebuilt to mean built exactly the same way as it was before. This seems unreasonably constraining. No one would quibble over whether Clydebank, Coventry or London were rebuilt after the blitz. They stand today and are inhabited. As does Tyre.

671. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67997 by BillySands on September 5, 2007 at 2:26 pm

You are of course right quetz. I have been very busy today and have not had enough Divine tea. I will try and get Mark a companion on this thread -Quetz willing of course.
It is good that you give your followers direct and unequivocal moral tutilage

672. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67996 by BillySands on September 5, 2007 at 2:21 pm

More things to deal with in your posts Mark, but its been a long day, and I'm I'm lucky, JC is already writing them. Time for bed.

673. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67989 by BillySands on September 5, 2007 at 2:09 pm

OOPs, didn't realise there was an extra page and I have repeated some of SWRB's post - Thats 2-1 Mark - we win by weight of numbers :-)

674. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67987 by BillySands on September 5, 2007 at 2:06 pm

to define and set bounds on the possible behaviour, or design choices, of an all-knowing, all-powerful God! It seems to me that RD is concerned to define God in human-relative terms - God could only have certain possible characteristics

Isn't deciding that something must be designed not projecting your ideas of what design is onto a putative designer. On thing that evolutionists do is argue that life is reducibly complex. On a related not, I would like to ask Mark whether he is of the opinion that life is "designed" to point to evidence of god's existence or is something that is looked upon in faith.

You also have to do some proper archaeology, not rely on photos, but we also have different views on the word rebuilt.

To physically take away the remains and (to use your word) "dump" them in the sea would be stupid, pointless and a great waste of time and material. Who would do such a thing "normally"?

Tthat's not really evidence, and the Roman's did that to Carthage, so as improbable as you claim, it certainly is not without precedence.

Cant remember if we have been over this before, but the dumping in the sea happens before the destruction of the mainland. Also, what other city could be meant when it is said that it will become a bare rock - sounds like an island to me, and of course, Nebuchadnezzar never got his promised plunder.
You still haven't shown that these things were written about before the event.

675. In God we doubt

Comment #67643 by BillySands on September 4, 2007 at 5:27 am

One that I didn't get to raise with devolved (I was saving it for later) was the varves in lake Suigetsu.

Nice example. We also have a continuous sample of tree rings goning back some 30 000 years. There are even some living trees that are older that the supposed date of the flood.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/oldest-organisms-on-earth.html

676. In God we doubt

Comment #67636 by BillySands on September 4, 2007 at 4:49 am

Thanks quetz,
It's all coming back now. Something to do with intra-chromosomal telomere sequeces for him to answer too, as well as a load of stuff by Robert and Epeeist too.

I think RD does not intervene because it would affect our free will. He could intervene, but that would be outwith his character. Why did god create syphillis?
Is this one big god Allah? isn't that the fastest growing faith?

677. In God we doubt

Comment #67629 by BillySands on September 4, 2007 at 4:13 am

Some believers are undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists)

Welcome back Devolved. Can some one remind me what the latest series of challenges was that he ran away from?

Did you find any dinosaur fossils with humans during your break dude?

678. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67623 by BillySands on September 4, 2007 at 3:39 am

Nice posts about the nastiness of the universe. I think a 6000 year old geocentric universe would be much better evidence for a creator. The idea that life is improbable and must be designed suddenly seems silly when we consider that an even more imporobable being must be in control of this immense universe, and mixing it about in the right way just to create us. If there is purpose out there, not only must every star be in the right place at the right time, but so must every atom, and each electron must have the right spin etc. How improbable is a being that can do that? He must have hand fashioned the exact size and shape of asteroid to wipe out the dinosaurs, as well as hitting the right target, which he had to prepare to be ready in time. This meant thhe right organisms dying in the right place at the right time to produce the limestone that would create the acid rain. He would have to set the earth spinning at the right angle to cause an oblique strike to optimise pollution to kill dinosaurs, but not our ancestors. He would have to arrange for the decan traps to spew out just the right ammount of lava etc. Any being who can do that is surely more improbable than a naturally occuring universe.
Mark, glad you had a good trip. What is your view on the dinosaur extinction event?

I'm off to have some tea - Praise quetz, for he made sure that out of all the molecules in the universe, just the right water molecules with just the right energy was a t hand to brew the perfect cup

679. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66718 by BillySands on August 31, 2007 at 5:39 am

It's not very new. We have known for some time that altered temporal and spatial regulation of Hox genes can radically alter body plan. That's a boot in the nuts for the creationists though. They seem to think you need massive ammounts of new DNA inserted into organisms to suddenly evolve an eye in a single step

680. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65844 by BillySands on August 27, 2007 at 4:26 am

Billy what do you mean, 'popping up':-)?

There's a horrible thought.
I would be suprised if the flea comes on this thread given that many in his church think the pope is the antichrist and that the church of Rome is the whore of Babylon. Poor flea cant decide what he believes on this matter publicly. I haven't heard him call for the inflammatory WCF claim that the pope is the antichrist to be outlawed, so I can only assume he is at home singing no pope, derry's walls, the sash etc and ending all things bright and beautiful with "fuck the pope"

681. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65836 by BillySands on August 27, 2007 at 2:48 am

SG, I guessed what whas going to pop up, but why couldn't I stop myself - AAARGHHH.

The problem is still there though. I sometimes hear vile comments on the bus to work in the morning.
On the subject of football, I think UEFA need to review their policies on handing out punishment. I would call killing referees worse than singing a few songs

682. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65645 by BillySands on August 25, 2007 at 10:00 am

I don't think she proved she can be good without a god, since it is debatable that she was good.

I was refering to the physical act of caring for the unwanted, but you are of course right, the catholic church is responsible for much suffering and the spread of HIV

683. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65603 by BillySands on August 25, 2007 at 4:30 am

It is sad that religios bullshit ruined her enjoyment of life.
However, she shows that you can do good without god

684. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #65393 by BillySands on August 24, 2007 at 2:57 am

Hurrah for quetz and his gift of Paracetamol laced tea leafed beverages

685. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65186 by BillySands on August 23, 2007 at 5:38 am

I wonder if he was one of the unfortunate youngsters eviscerated by Dawkins at the Randolph-Macon seminar. I seem to remember one of them referred to himself as a "biology major".

Indeed he is. If I remember correctly, his real name is Ryan Tomlinson. A couple of us checked out his biology professor's publications. He only had about 12 in poor quality journals (all on Alhzeimers from what I remember). The ones I looked at were so bad, I would have rejected at the review stage.
Thse who can, do. Those who cant, "teach" at Liberty U.

686. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #65169 by BillySands on August 23, 2007 at 4:48 am

You're not suggesting that bible writers made a mistake?

Certainly not. A mistake would require that they were initially intending to convey the truth. An investigation of Messianic prophecy will show you that they were not.

687. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #65158 by BillySands on August 23, 2007 at 3:41 am

Concerning the decendant of David business. This is of course not possible because Joseph was apparently not his father. The genealogies of Matt 1 and Luke 3 strongly disagree with each other. Some try to claim that Lukes is the genealogy of Mary - read it and dream on! A major problem is that we have Paul saying that he is the decendant of David, but luke has the wrong son of David. The messianic line is to come through Solomon, not Nathan (2 Sam. 7:12, 1 Chron. 22:9-10).

688. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65153 by BillySands on August 23, 2007 at 3:13 am

Which "college"?

Liberty "University" I'm affraid. It's interesting that he is trying to gain credibility by claiming to be a "biology major", because that works!

689. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65146 by BillySands on August 23, 2007 at 2:40 am

Hey Bizzaro,
You never answered the chicken question again. Last time you lied about the explanation befor running away.

Um, I think you're only telling one half of the story. Did you ever think to check up on him AFTER his honeymoon?

Um, what other side is there? It abstainence him a great deal of trouble. What does his wedding night have to do with that? By the way, he became a lot calmer after finally clearing his custard.

More straw-men. I never went so far as to say that it sex outside of marriage was wrong, only that abstinence is much safer than sex with a condom.
Ah the failed deflection strategy. You do believe it is wrong though, so dont be a slippery little weasel, it just makes you look bad.

My brother used to go to a state university where the STD rate was about 50% of the student body.

Ah, solid anecdotal evidence based on a sample of one. They obviously have high standards at Liberty. Also. who said that everyone having sex was using a condom. Try Di Vincenzi 1994 New England Journal of Medicine Vol 331 no6. Condoms work!

sex is encouraged in the Bible within the right context.

It certainly is, and it appears that rape is one of the right contexts. Have you read Numbers 31:7-18?

"They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves ."

690. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65022 by BillySands on August 22, 2007 at 4:46 pm

It has been going on for nearly a year. Sigh.

I suppose it helps him keep his hand out of his chastity belt

Goodnight

691. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65003 by BillySands on August 22, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Toronto Tim
Rest assured that question was not intended to be homophobic. From previous comments, Bizzaro has shown himself to hold homophobic beliefs which is why I only enquired about women. It is a bit of an unjustified leap to go from not being attracted to women to being Gay.

Dazzjazz

I wonder what made Collins surrender to Jesus instead of one of the many other 'offerings' on the celestial smorgasboard? Perhaps the waterfall had frozen in the shape of a cross and was melting tears of blood?

Apparently it split int three parts and that reminded him of the trinity - Conclusive proof I'm sure you will agree

692. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64950 by BillySands on August 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm

One of my friends stayed celibate till his wedding night, but it was drove him nuts. It is not healthy or normal. If thats the way you want to live, fair enough, but dont tell others they are wrong. Especially if you are a 20 year old virgin who has hever got his sausage wet

and dangerous, sometimes does motivate a few sex starved people to blow themselves up to get a-lot-a-vagina in the after life.

Lets not forget sex crimes committed by some catholic priests either

693. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64943 by BillySands on August 22, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Now I've heard it argued that people will have sex either way, so it's better that they do it with a condom. Baloney. I'm a 20 year old guy, and I've had more than a few opportunities to let my hormones do the thinking. Thankfully, humans are not animals. We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

What rubbish. Humans are animals. Are you really implying that we should all live the way you say? Another problem is that you are only in charge of your own sexual activity, and not that of your partners. Do you think the "faithful" should suffer for the "sins" of others? What a truely retarded way of thinking. Have you considered the possibility that you are not attracted to women?

I'm still waiting to hear how you explain chickens with teeth

694. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #64613 by BillySands on August 21, 2007 at 2:34 am

Hi Lee,
Concerning Judas, the Gospel of Judas gives a different side to that story. He planned it with Jesus. If you look at the so called prophecies concerning Judas, they are not prophecies at all (more later if you wish).

Then we have this little beauty: (Matt 19:28)

"And Jesus said to them (the disciples), "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones , judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Apparently including Judas.

Saw some guys from Judas Priest support Iron Maiden a few years ago. It was strange watching them head bang without hair

695. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #63589 by BillySands on August 15, 2007 at 2:38 am

Have a safe trip Mark

696. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63588 by BillySands on August 15, 2007 at 2:32 am

PS. When I wrote my second post I had initially written after the first sentence - so please leave the questions about the Pope, Billy. But then I removed that because it was facetious and I thought silly. Not even Billy would manage to bring the Pope into a discussion about this wonderful documentary! I was wrong (again!). All questions on the Pope etc will be answered (as they have been) once again on the other threads - when I get a chance....

Now Now david. You lie about answering. You have been asked many many times about whether your belief that the pope is the antichrist fuels religious hatered, and you fail to answer. We can of course guess why, which leads us to its relevance to this thread - teaching of religious hatred. One thing I cant stand is a self righteous religious bigot who is happy to snipe at others, but goes about doing his own bit to fuel hatred between catholics and protestants.

And I don't think see the need to bite David every time he says anything, even when it's reasonable.

Had he said anything reasonable I would agree, but we get

then in order to fight it, you are going to have to give up, what seems to be one of the central tenets of the atheist faith,

and

Christians don't kill those who disagree with them! (And yes the exceptions do prove the rule!)

The exceptions prove the rule? What rule? Are you saying the crusaders, the UDA, IRA etc were not christians? or do you believe in apparent salvation through deeds and not faith. The only thing an exception proves is that there are no rules.

697. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63405 by BillySands on August 14, 2007 at 4:52 am

Come David, dont deny that your church has been involved in bad deeds. I really want to hear your opinion on whether your oath that the pope is the antichrist fuels sectarian hatred.
You still justify some bad doctrines based on the bible, despite what you say.
Have you checked out the comments on the other thread since you got back? where your arse was kicked over wilberforce?

(not a real Moslem/Christian/Communist, delete as applicable).

I remember someone on David's site saying no true christian was a homosexual

698. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #63369 by BillySands on August 14, 2007 at 3:17 am

And here is the philosophers song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

699. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #63366 by BillySands on August 14, 2007 at 3:09 am

Lee,
The Bruce sketch has redeemed you.
Here is one of my favorite pieces of Aussie comedy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLz5KgBTqPY&mode=related&search=

700. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #63242 by BillySands on August 13, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Concerning the timing of Jesus' return, Matt 24 gives some insight.
Important verses are 33-34 "33Even so, when you [the disciples]see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened .

I suspect this failure to return is what lead "Peter" to write
"3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 peter 3:3-9)

The author needs to explain why Jesus has not returned yet. It is reasonable to assume that the audience were expecting it (justifiably). The excuse says that God has changed his mind That seems unlikely given that his plan is perfect etc. By delaying, I would think many more people would be born than would be condemned. This both raises the possibility of pre-destiny and denies it at the same time - it seems somewhat inconsistent.
I also have a problem with the idea that we apparently deliberately forget the flood. This is a good verse to use on those who say the biblical flood/6 day creation is not meant to be literal - I presume mark may back me up here :-)