901. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47956 by BillySands on June 6, 2007 at 6:07 am

Yet again David, you dont answer anything. Again, how do you know the vandals were atheists? Why is homosexuality wrong, why is the bible an old universe book (benjamin destroyed that myth) etc?

I dont think you looked at that list of contradictions, so again you are a liar. The KJV is not the issue, often it is a direct contradiction. lets take this one for example

Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her
death. - II Samuel 6:23

The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul. - II Samuel 21:8

This occurs in at least two hebrew manuscripts.
All translations also give conflicting genealogies for jesus


And anti semitism in germany was a continuation of christian abnti-semitism. I think the jews were even blmed for the black death by the christians, and killed accordingly

902. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47685 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 9:20 am

Thanks for the link Benjamin. It is clear that the whole genesis stuff and flood are meant to be taken literally. By claiming otherwise, theists like David are being dishonest in their "interpretation" of the "creation". I have never heard a good justification that it should mean anything other than 24 hours. It is just a desperate attempt to save the word of their god in light of scientific evidence. I would be suprised if the bible ever shed any light on a problem, whereas "progressive" biblicists always try to say the bible says the universe is old and the earth is round and evolution occurs. Basically, it doesn't. Here is a link to a comment on hebrew cosmology - pretty wierd
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1190,Another-Christian-Science-Fair-embarrasses-itself,PZ-Myers-scienceblogscom,page4#47179

903. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47631 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 5:23 am

NMcC,
Glad you came back. That kicked ass! Your response clearly shows the need to engage these liars and muppets. It is a powerful demonstration to doubters that their ministers etc have been filling them full of lies

904. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #47619 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 4:38 am

Qhetz

Lee, I thought Jesus said something like he wasn't here to get rid of the old commandments, but to complete them. Something like that, anyway.

one of the verses you refer to is Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

905. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47600 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 3:47 am

I can give you an actual example from a few days ago on this site. It turns out that ministers in the Free Church of Scotland have to proclaim certain things as true when they are ordained. These things include creation happening in 6 days, and that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Yeah, it's this thread http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1197,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Robert-Winston,Today-BBC,page1,commentReceived#comments

906. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47598 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 3:45 am

Yeah, suffering is all god's fault. In an attempt to undo his work, the devil helped us invent medicine. I think satan gets unfair treatment in the bible http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html

You will notice when the canon isn't right, the religious seem to then point and fire it at those who questioned them arf arf!

BOOM BOOM!

907. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47586 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 3:07 am

Philip,
Hope your back gets better - nasty god!
The cannon is still confused. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/otcanon.html
I wouldn't worry about david, he will provide no evidence of his own. He once criticised a link of mine one because it had skeptic in the title - by his thinking, it was therefore invalid - What a chump!

908. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47467 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 3:33 pm

JRG,
Robertson is more "if you dont agree with my authority you are a christian hating fundy" type whose morality is rooted in thr bronze age http://richarddawkins.net/article,1197,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Robert-Winston,Today-BBC#47449

909. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47466 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Teapot,
I did not mean to imply they were unwelcome, and they are respectful and very welcome

James. It's not actually me it is a character played by ade edmundson called vyvyan from a show called the young ones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdkT9sGRw_E

Dr Benway, that was another of may reasons for me too

zwingli

The writer/speaker of the prophecy had no idea it was about Jesus, of course. But to say that there is no other meaning than the author's intention is to impose assumptions that lead to an obvious conclusion..

I disagree, the sole intention is quite clear.

But if there is a God who can inspire people's writing, then meaning is not necessarily limited by the human writer's intent. And, if you exclude the possibiliity of such a God, then the meaning can only be what was in the mind of the human author.

This is a kind of special pleading that works on the assumption you are correct, and is circular logic. It is no different from saying the bible is the word of god, therefore it is true. Therefore the bible is ture because it is the word of god

However, the NT writers had the benefit of hindsight and recent experience - which gave them another perspective on possible inspired meanings.

Like stealing pagan myths perhaps?

In addition, parts of the some NT writers' focus was on justifying christianity as a continuity or development of judaism. So it is hardly surprising that the writers looked again at what was in the OT.

Well we agree on that. However, when you look at more and more prophecies, you conclude the writers were being dishonest

We can't logically agree on Divine inspiration, but we can possibly agree that the NT writers were making a reasonable interpretation of some OT writings - in the light of the recent events and their experiences.

Now, this is the crux, logically deriving divine intervention. Surely if god was clear and to the point about prophecies concerning jesus, there would be no room for doubt (particularly if some extant OT manuscripts carbon dated to the time before jesus - i'm not disputing the dates here). However, the more prophecies you read in context, the more contrived the life of jesus seems. John (20:31) would disagree with you on the need for accepting the supernatural as a prerequisite for intepreting the prophecies. He clearly says his gospel was written so that you may believe in jesus. It woulsd be of little use if you already needed faith to intepret it now. Also, the bible even says you should test all prophecies(1 thess 5:19)

910. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47449 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Btw the word for create used in genesis (bara) does not imply evolution

911. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47445 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:19 pm

james and dianelos, welcome to this site.
You are the best unwelcome visitors we have had.
I look forward to your posts. Many thanks.

I see I am not the only one who has doubts about james' doubts then :-)

912. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47442 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Generally, reasonable bible interpretation starts with understanding what was said "in context" - but that does not have to be the limit of the meaning. Especially when faced with events that suggest an alternative.

Erm - NO! it is not circular logic the question is does the prophecy refer to jesus or not. Read in context, it does not. Also couple that with the fact the most other contempory deities at the time were born of virgins too, and you smell a rat.
I presume you are the one using circular logic: that the gospels say so, therefore it must be about jesus. Can you demonstrate why the very clear and unequivocal statement to ahaz is even remotely about jesus?

913. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47440 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:08 pm

been a while since I read that link. The virgin birth context is actually in this one http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

914. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47437 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 1:55 pm

zwingli
I dont think he misunderstands the prophecy. His point like yours (i think) is that they are not about anything other than the events of their context eg, the "virgin birth" prophecy was only for the benefit of ahaz some 730 BCE. The gospel writers take these out of context and rather deviously attribute these to jesus

915. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47422 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 1:17 pm

james,
one of the things that really made me lose my faith was when I went through the gospels and checked the fulfilment of messianic prophecies. I found all alledged fulfilments and then checked the original prophecies. I found that none referred to jesus. I recommend yo try it yourself. You could also read this link http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
Ironically, it was a last gasp attempt to confirm my faith

916. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47395 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 11:23 am

Someone told james of the god machine somewhere. here is the link
http://richarddawkins.net/article,361,The-God-Experiments,John-Horgan--Discover-Magazine

917. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47393 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 11:14 am

I think he is a brit. I specifically think he may be the troll who was once called jack sparrow/gimpthigy. They all get there rubbish from the same sources though, and like a hive are controlled by a few individuals. either way, he is an ignoramus

918. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47370 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 8:58 am

This wont come as a suprise, but I dont respect David either. How can you? He is an abusive and evasive liar who uses his delusion to justify immorality.
There certainly are christians I have a lot of respect for as people. I even respect the fact their faith is important to them, but the bottom line is, I am convinced that they are deluded.

BTW when I was a christian, I used to be homo-phobic. However, since I left the church, I stopped being scared of Ted Haggard ;-)

919. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47354 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 7:40 am

Davis says

Of course. I realise that it is comforting for you to hold these beliefs about me and about other people, but if you really are the open-minded, tolerant and rational people that you claim to be, then perhaps you should stop projecting your thought patterns and your philosophies upon everyone else.

Vs
David says

firstly no matter what is said you are going to believe that the Bible is historically wrong. I realize that this fulfills a deep psychological need for you but I'm afraid that such fundamentalism doesn't really help me or any kind of rational discussion.

That's strange! Only this week I was called a Bible bashing bastard! And one of the windows of my church was put in. I have no doubt whatsoever that even though there are nice atheists, those who discuss philosophically, yet the language of hatred is such, that other human beings will use it as an excuse for persecution.

And what makes you think they were athiests? Or do you just want them to be athiests.

You have still not sid why the bible is an old universe book. Nor have you read the scientific debate on homosexuality. You are just spouting more lies and conspiracy theories - aren't you!

920. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47332 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 5:32 am

Cheers Windweaver,
Here is another good link http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

Obviously david wont like it because it is not written by someone who agrees with him

921. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47325 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 5:10 am

Good to see you again Quetz. I feel like we are torturing wee flea here, but it is for the greater good. I see he has been giving it conspiracy theories in todays herald http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1444259.0.0.php

922. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47314 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 4:12 am

And Billy, you are a scream! You blew me out of the water on the Luke Census! You're having a laugh...sweet dreams

read it and weep David

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page11#comments comment 254

Billy – Keep them coming. You are really getting a wee bit desperate. Yet another couple of verse quoted out of context. If you read the rest of the passage you will find that Jehiachin 'reigned' three months before he was taken from the throne and sent into exile – thus fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremiah. Try not to be so pedantic! By the way Jesus was born proabbly in 4 BC - there is no problem with the census. And please do not just diss Willaim Ramsay because you do not like his evidence - he was after all a professor of archaeology at Oxford and Cambridge.

Daivd, you really are going to need to learn to think for yourself. What does Ramsey's position have to do with anything. I have met nobel laureates who are batty! Your arguement seems be be that Ramsay was an oxford professor, so he must be right (apply that to dawkins and you are on the right track though). Lets look at his evidence

The Lapis Tiburtinus
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
...KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF...
AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE...
FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS...
FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION...
OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA...
AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Please point out the name of quirinius and a date. Do your homework (out of interest, what class was your degree in history?)

Judea also did not come under roman rule until 6CE, so there could not have been a census before then. If jesus was born in the time of herod c. 4BCE, then luke is wrong. If he was born after 6CE, then matthew is wrong, and we can also discard the visit of the magi and the slaughter of the innocents as a historical fact. The bible is in trouble and you are deluding yourself.

Concerning jehoaikim, did god say or did he not say that he will have no sucessors? And is his son's three month reign a succession or not? The bible is again wrong. Notice your poor way of thinking here. The bible contradicts itself, so we should not take it literally. This shows the illogical presuppositions of your thinking. Maybe we shouldn't take the resurrection so literally then? where do you stop? Feel free to resolve the virgin birth prophecy anytime you fancy. After having read it in context, the only thing that stops me laughing in the face of anyone who quotes that as a prophecy is the fact that I was deluded once myself.

Your response comment 530

Another piece of brilliance! Not only for its literary style and spelling. My argument is that when faced with a choice between an amateur historian with a hatred for the bible and an agenda to 'prove', and a professional archaeologist at two of the top universities in the world, my inclination is to go with the expert. And yes – it is because Dawkins is a professor at Oxford that I take him seriously, and although I know nothing about evolution I accept that the majority of qualified scientists think it is accurate and so that does make it more likely for me.
But I do think your quote above illustrates how pointless it is arguing history with you. You are like the example Gould gives of the 'mouse from Michigan'. Whenever an evolutionist is giving a talk some self styled expert influenced by AIG or whatever will shout out 'I know a mouse in Michigan' and then proceed to claim that this 'evidence' disproves evolution. You are the atheist equivalent – in between torrents of illiterate abuse you shout out 'what about Quinquirius'. Despite this being answered (and yes the census probably was in 4 BC and Q was a governor then) you then go off on another rant. Because you fail to recognize two things – firstly no matter what is said you are going to believe that the Bible is historically wrong. I realize that this fulfills a deep psychological need for you but I'm afraid that such fundamentalism doesn't really help me or any kind of rational discussion. And secondly you seem to think that if you can demonstrate that the Bible got some of its historical facts wrong then it disproves the whole thing. I'm not sure how that works. But here is a challenge for you – prove that an historical event described as such in the Bible did not happen. That would certainly undermine the claim to historical infallibility. I have been an historian for 25 years and have studied the Bible for that period of time. I have not come across any such evidence. Please note that I am not saying I can prove that everything the Bible says happened did. However you are claiming that we should not believe the Bible because it has demonstrable historical falsehoods in it. It is therefore up to you to demonstrate those demonstrable falsehoods. So far all you have demonstrated is your irrational hatred of anything to do with the Bible. But please feel free to provide evidence.

Nothing like a piece of reasoned debate eh? a bit like your response

As usual, when seriously challenged, you resort to abuse. You never did address the otherthings, and I also challenged you on the existance of Abraham and whether the siege of sennacherib in 701 BCE happened the way it described in the bible or not. Both times I presented evidence. You even said that you could not take take the opinion of someone who suggested Abraham did not exist seriously - yet you had no evidence, and I did.

What a bout Micah 5:2 or the virgin birth? Am I going to have to show people you getting your bottom spanked there too?


Anyway, Why is homosexuality wrong, you have still to say why. If something is so bad, you should be able to say why, or ist it as we suspect, because god says so? Can you see that is a dangerous way of thinking? - probably not

923. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47306 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 3:36 am

Philip

Oh yes, the Constantine thing, I acknowledge the bible was around before he and his mates made a load more stuff up, I just wanted to know what you thought of their actions. I look at it as a bunch of men making more rules for a man made religion

That would require intelligent debate. He does not do that. I got him a couple of times on messianic prophecies and the census of quirinius making matthew and Luke incompatible. The funny thing is he thought he had me (he claims to be a historian, but hadn't done any proper reseach) I blasted him out the water, and it degraded to me being called a fundie again.

If we see him pop up elsewhere, we should bug him with the same unanswered questions and post links to them for others to enjoy

924. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47296 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:28 am

I can see that the standard of debate has dropped considerably.

Well, you have returned.

now, there are at least two other reasons. The first is biblical teaching, which I know you do not accept. And the second is basic biology.

You still have to address why it is wrong. The biblical teaching part of your answer proves my point that the bible makes people act in retarded ways, because as far aas you are concerned, no justification is required - god says it is wrong - therefore...... However, there is nothing wrong with a lovong homosexual relationship. Your second answer is incredibly obtuse. So, if something goes against biology, it is wrong? What about congenitally deformed people? Girls reach puberty around 12 - that means they can have babies david. Does that mean you have no problem with uncle nobby the 62 year old paedo wanting to do them? What about selfishness that biological - oh wait a minute..... HOMOSEXUALITY HAS A BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

I ask you once again, what is inherently evil about it.

BTW we didn't actually burn the jungle jim* We just pused him over the edge - he is still alive badly hurt though - perhaps the crows and buzzards have finished him off by now though

*jungle jim = tim = catholic = whore of babylon (I thought Stan summed your lot up nicely with his question)

925. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #47224 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 3:36 pm

james_the_doubter

I gave the "goodness" of god a bit of a kicking in post 164 here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1197,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Robert-Winston,Today-BBC,page4#comments

I also briefly touch on free will. There is also discussion on homosexuality on that thread where a theist cant justify his intolerance of it I hope it is of use to you. On a personal note, deconverting from christianity was the best thing that happened to me in years. It is a struggle, but worth it in the end. When you realise why you were wrong, it is so liberating intellectually and emotionally

926. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47179 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 10:49 am

Devolved, I'm afraid that I am going to have to call you an idiot. Read Robert's link properly. Also let me take just one point to show what a total ignoramous you are:

An 'evolutionary feature' of ArticAFPG is described as 'Convergent evolution'. This belief, that similarities between animals can only be understood in terms of an evolutionary relationship, is the most fundamental axiom of evolution—almost all arguments for evolution depend upon it.

Firstly, Convergent evolution refers to two unrelated organisms evolving similar strategies to solve a similar problem eg the shape of fish and dolphins. Secondly, the similarities argue for relationships, not the other way round. If youu want messy relationships, try the family tree(s) of jesus (btw jude 1:14 says Enoch was the 7th generation from adam, everywhere else says he was the 6th, and you believe this stuff is the word of god 2 tim 3:16. The book of Enoch is quoted by jude, so we can assume it is the word of god too. Epeeist I'm affraid Enoch makes a mockery of tour lifes work "This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5)."

Sorry dude

Devolved, address the opsin gene link.

I'll end with an analogy. There are four bikes in my garage. One of them is new (my wife bought it yesterday). If tomorrow I built another 'new' bike by taking bits from the four already there it would be 'new' in a different way to my wife's. A 'new' bike assembled from existing bits of others. What is not immediately clear to me from the article is in what sense 'newness' is being defined.

You could weld two together and make a tandem!

Tell me, what new features do you expect to see evolve and why? Epeeist has a lot of questions remaining to be answered. Please answer questions and finish something before moving on.

The thing is, I think I know the point you are trying to argue, the trouble is you dont, and no one takes you seriously

927. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47172 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 10:07 am

surely the sabbath was only one day, and the rest were billions- its obvious if you drink a mixture of meths and paintstripper.
I agree and also think these fundies do serve a purpose and allow others to see the flaws in theistic thinking. A few people have said elsewhere that wee flea has helped them overcome their faith, so there is hope. Funny thing is, that doesn't stop him comming back. If you electrocute a snail often enough, it at least learns to stay in its shell.
David, How many people have left your church because of the atheists who visited your site before you changed it?
And why is homosexuality worth the death sentence?

The can simply say that their God-inspired concience tells them what is right.

Which is exactly why the world would be safer without religion.

Stan type blockquote between the <> symbols

928. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #47168 by BillySands on June 3, 2007 at 9:35 am

Been away a few days. Have any new dinosaurs been found yet devolved?
I asked you a lot of questions you ignored. i would also like an answer concerning opsin genes. You make me laugh - and not in a good way. I see you still dont have a clue.

have another gratuitous biblical contradiction for a laugh Jeremiah 36:30
Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have none to sit on the throne of David.

vs

II Kings 24:6
So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

Oh and this guy was supposed to be an ancestor of jesus too - well according to matthew anyway. luke disagrees

Not one page later, in citing "problems" for gene duplication, the paper mentions that "Zhang, in a study of gene duplication, concluded that many duplicated genes become degenerate, nonfunctional pseudogenes and, in only 'rare cases', 'a new function may evolve', as is believed to have occured in the douc langur monkey."

vs

Creationist scientists (including me) generally assume that God would not create purposeless genes in different primates, and that God did not independently disable the same genes in humans and nonhuman primates during the Curse.

from the same site. I agree with Robert, make him read.

Is anyone actually swayed in favour of devolved's position with all his bullshit links?

929. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46716 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 9:00 am

I dont know if he knows, He loves his monarch but hates god save the queen for being too proddy. In some rspects he is like wee flea who doesnt know if he thinks the poe is the antichrist or not.

Actually, I have a friend who got a lift from a wee free minister near kintail. He made the mistake of asking if he was a priest. There then followed a long rant about the catholic church being the whore of babylon

Have you tried sending your question into the sunday post?

Answer is obvious. Burn him in the whisky. Kill two satanic birds with one stone!

LOL (thats not loyal orange lodge by the way David) I better not forget my marsh mallows

930. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46710 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 8:25 am

Stan, I am actually spending the weekend with a guy called David Robertson, he his climbing his last munro. The trouble is, there is going to be a catholic there - who has a gay brother, maybe the other david robertson could tell me the best way to burn him. I thought Brahan seer style in a tar barrel on top of stob na broige - after he has carried the whisky up of course. What do you think?

Maybe I could just put some honey on his head and let my army of gay fruit flies bum him

931. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46680 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 4:25 am

BaronOchs

BillySands isn't a christian minister supposed to conduct himself with gentleness and dignity regardless of whether it will be reciprocated?

Absolutely. Especially with doubuters. They are supposed to be corrected with gentleness. I thought I was as certain as you could be that god didn't exist when I first came across David, now I realise it is possible to be considerably more convinced - Oh well, if god exists, he will at least throw David in a pond with a millstone around his neck (matt 18:6)

I ask "Reverend" Robertson wouldn't he be a bit embarassed or ashamed, if we distributed half the stuff he spews out here, amongst his congregation?

Interesting that he said he did not encourage his congregation to join in the debate. I also linked this comment of his on his own site and he removed it - several times

Philip, Man makes god in his own image, therefore, I am God and you cant prove othervise BWWWahhahahah

932. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46667 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:42 am

Philip, It prevents cells making energy and you die. I am going to make some homosexual fruit flies to plague david - all you have to do is fiddle with their genes - ooh err missus: a gene called fruitless in particular.

All in the name of fundamental atheism!

933. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46666 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:39 am

Hi BaronOchs,
There is a great deal of religious hatred in the west coast of Scotland: catholics vs protestants. However, we dont see atheists going about kicking in people because of what they believe

934. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46663 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 3:35 am

Sorry for butting in guys- long incubations at work today

the only reason I did not include hurricanes and other events such as earthquakes, was simply because of space. If I go on to do other videos now will look at the nature of evil and its impact upon the world.
and yes I do believe that the nature of evil has an impact upon the argument from design.

Really! Are you then saying that earthquakes, volcanos and disease did not exist before man?

Yes I believe that the universe was created in six days, but I also believe that these days periods of time. And I believe that the overwhelming evidence is that the universe is billions of years old.

Can you give any evidence about the age of the earth? Your bible says it is young and flat afterall. Do you also believe that light existed before the sun and all animals were vegetarian? Justify why the bible is an "old universe" book, or are you just graping on to scientific truths even though they contradict the bible?

Dont forget to answer my questions on homosexuality first - they take poriority (I've got a bet on about your response. Lets see if I win a mars bar)

935. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46654 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 2:52 am

I'm also reminded of the story where jesus refused to sell the expensive perfume to help the poor (john 12:1-8) even although this was wrong by his own admission (Matt. 25:41-46). Its not just Paul and David who contadict themselves then.

Are we to assume then, that you made a vow that the pope was the antichrist, but you didn't actually make it? Are there any psychologists reading? If so, what do you make of David?

936. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46650 by BillySands on June 1, 2007 at 2:43 am

David

Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting? What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

Another dodge of the question David. Did you or did you not say you would happily answer my question? I can only assume you are a liar. All I get is evasion and more questions from you. Now answer the questions concerning homosexuality. And explain why in your opinion my answer is simplistic - particularly because you only justify hating it because the bible says so. I gave a valid reason why something is wrong. Now please do the same with homosexuality, and refrain from the simplistic approaches you are accustomed to spouting. BTW even "normal" sex that you consider a gift from god is not without its dangers - Silly Boy!

The rest of the posts are a waste – especially Billy's hilarioius analysis of the Bible!

Chuckle chuckle. I guess you dont have a response then. My you must be warped if you think all that stuff in the bible is good. If someone attacked my invisible and immaginary friend like that, I'd want to defend him - unless of coure it cant be defended.
BTW have you seen how many of Dawkins' books are in borders - more than in the entire religion section! I never saw your ill concieved pile of circular logic and vitriol though. Saw McGrath's pamplet, but not yours - mind you, I never went into the toilets

Why do you insist on calling me a liar? And refuse to engage with anything of substance and I say?

See above! When did you ever say anything of substance?

Please give examples of atheist fundamentalists, then think about what your lot do (ahem swingpark). Need to go and fill a creationist biochemist with a mitrocondrial uncoupler now

937. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46500 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Cheers scottishgeologist. It's just a little something I knocked together. I now imagine David riddled with holes, although, there cant be too much left of him. He has already been mercilessly gored on the twin horns of reason and morality.
Justdont get me started on felicity kendal and cliff richard :-)

I hadnt noticed that you posted a comment about the Brahan Seer (in that unbelievably long Christadelphian thread) - fascinating tale that is - I have a book by Elizabeth Mackenzie which goes into it in depth - of course a lot of it is unprovable, and one of the suggestions was that he was "made up" after the events happened.

Now, who does that sound like? And there are no autographs either. At least they have a proper light house on the point now. The seer was always a good warm up story for frightening freshers with supernatural tales in bothies, and of course people never think maybe it was made up afterwards
It was Kenneth Mackenzie the seer worked for. Is Elizabeth a decendant?
Corylus I find this a good site for finding verses that i cant remember http://bibletab.com/
It also gives you the original hebrew and greek

Steve I dont really visit the forums. I think there may be some on http://www.exchristian.net

938. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46460 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 10:26 am

Steve, this is becoming a good thread for some decent debate. Mark is a nice chap, although I dont think he will be back for a while http://richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg

David, keep off it, I'm actually enjoying an intelligent debate here

939. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46458 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 10:08 am

SRWB

do you think David the Flea won't try to rationalize his way out of all that?

I expect to be either ignored or called a fundie with a deep hatred of christians. What I dont expect is a rational response. It is posted more for the benefit of those who don't know how evil the god of the bible actually is.

940. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46439 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 8:16 am

It became apparent at a meeting of the Glasgow brights last night (and some posts here), that there are some things they never teach you in sunday school. So, I thought I would redress the balance:

Biblicists often claim that because we all seem to share certain moral values, there must be an external provider of these values (their god) that fixes them in the hearts of man (Rom.1:19). This is an idea that CS Lewis discusses in "Mere Christianity". If this were true, then all people would be able to make the same moral judgements on a given topic. This is clearly not the case. One just has to think about the number of disagreements believers have amongst themselves (gay bishops (Think requirements for salvation) women priests (Think equality) and contraception (think HIV in Africa)) are a few examples. Christians usually respond to this by saying that people have their own agendas and are not following God (in other words everyone is wrong but me). The trouble is that both sides usually make valid biblical arguments. The real problem however is that the bible is self contradictory on so many issues, that you cannot use it as a guidebook. Here is an example of the contradictions concerning homosexual bishops: the bible says that homosexuals must be killed (Lev. 20:13), Jesus never gave any instructions to the contrary. If he did, he would be contradicting God. Compare this to Paul's statement that all things are permissible; even the ones that are not good for you (1Cor.10:23). Not one to be consistent though, Paul also orders a congregation to kick a sinner out of their church (1 Cor.5:1-2) Paul also tells us that EVERYONE is a sinner (Rom. 3:9-18) so why single one group out? Yet again, Paul contradicts himself and other Christians on Rom.1:19 by informing us that rather than having God's laws written on their hearts, people actually need to be taught right from wrong (Rom. 10:13-14 and 2:21). Therefore, if even their holy book shows itself to be contradictory and inconsistent, then the idea of a morally guiding god is not a viable hypothesis.
Morality is not just a question of what you do, but why you do it. This is a common Christian response to apparent examples of moral behaviour in other animals. I do however strongly doubt that true intention based morality is a common theme in every day life. Try this thought experiment: imagine you are out and you walk past a tramp. He is a dirty-faced abusive alcoholic. His beard is encrusted with vomit, his breath stinks, and he smells of stale urine. His penis is also hanging out. What do you do? Most likely, you walk past him. You may even feel disgust and call the police. You may however throw some money at him out of pity, but that just hurts him more, because he will buy some alcohol with it. What you would not do (purely out of love for him) is take him home and help him sort out his life. But that is what Jesus tells you to do. To do otherwise is a sin (Matt. 25:41-46). The very few (if any) who would genuinely take him home, I salute you, but how many of you would also be Christian?
Now on to the stuff they don't teach you in Sunday school. Firstly, God set up man to fail. I say this because before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they could not know that it was wrong to disobey this dictatorial and draconian god (Gen.3:5 and 22). To make matters even worse, he put the serpent in the garden to tempt these naïve people into disobeying him (Gen.3.1-6). God even make this evil creature in the first place (Gen.3:1). What a bastard! That shows as much parental responsibility as hiring a paedophile to baby-sit for you! Because of this situation, God condemns all mankind to die. What a thoroughly evil act. This is just the first of many examples of God punishing people for "sins" perpetrated by others (Ex. 11 (very disgusting slaughter of children) Is. 14-21-22 and Deut.5:9 for example). Imagine the police arresting you one night because your great grandfather was an Australian sheep rustler or a German concentration camp guard, it is just ludicrous. Most bizarrely, he even punishes people for being evil and audacious enough to be born to unmarried parents, or because they were born in the wrong place, like Moab (Deut.23:2-3). Bizarre, because he (through the birth of Jesus) is the bastard descendant of a bastard and a Moabite (Matt. 1:3-5, Gen.38, Ru. 4 and Matt. 1-18-19).
Not only has God created evil, he often uses it to harm others (Lam. 3:38, Jer. 26:3, 36:3, and 1Sam. 16:33 to name a few). He even uses lies when it suits him (2Chron. 18:19-22). The bible also tells us that God hardens the hearts of those he wants to destroy, such as the Pharaoh (Ex. 14:1-31) and he does this after he has bullied the Egyptians into getting his way. It didn't seem to matter that his gripe was with an individual, because he was cruel to the whole nation. God basically took away Pharaohs' free will and lead him and others to destruction. What happened to mercy and forgiveness? If you are going to make Pharaoh do something, then why not just make him let the Israelites go free, with out all that nastiness, plagues and the unjustifiable killing of Egypt's first born? If all this was true, you have got think Pharaoh must have been incredibly thick not to let the Israelites go. The exodus probably never happened, but that doesn't change the immoral nature of the god of the bible. Remember, this is a God who for no good reason other than because he is God, prevents people from believing in him and being saved (Rom. 9:18).

The whole book of Joshua is about God ordained acts of ethnic cleansing, intolerance and genocide. Apparently God did not want his people contaminated with the practices of pagans. Again, this does not justify the extreme methods that God commanded, including infanticide. This means that if you are different, God does not want to forgive and enlighten you. In fact, he wants you and your babies dead. The contradiction with NT theology is glaringly obvious! Again, God's inability to be pleased (and inconsistency) is shown when he orders the Israelites to "righteously murder" the Midianites, including women and children (Num. 39). This very act however makes the Israelites impure and unable to approach God (Num. 31:19). In other words, God says "I am the God of righteousness, who cannot abide evil. Go and carryout this evil act that I demand or I will be angry, even although this act will make you repulsive to me."

God also doesn't have a problem with forcing people into cannibalism (Lev. 26:29, Jer. 19:9). Neither does he have a problem with kidnapping women, nor with making them gifts to be used as sex slaves (Jud. 21:11-14). In fact, the god of the bible doesn't think too much of women at the best of times. These following attitudes make me sick! A rapist must marry his victim. Forcing someone to live with their abuser is just about the worst thing you can make them do, and to rub salt into the wounds, the victim's father must be compensated (Deut. 22:28-29). Eve also gets all the blame for the original sin (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful (Gen.3:16). Yep, God hates women!
So, what does he like then? Well, slavery for one, as long as the slaves are not Israelite (Lev. 25:44-46). Furthermore, he doesn't mind you beating them, as long as you don't kill them (Ex. 21:22-24). God likes slavery so much; he even sets different laws for the welfare of slaves and their Israelite masters. If an owner knocks out a slaves eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). I like Gandhi's observation (pardon the pun) that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Should the master kill the slave, the punishment is not defined (Ex. 20:21) here, but if he kills an Israelite, he too must be killed (Ex. 21:12). God also likes perfectly formed people too. Any one deformed may not approach him (Lev. 21:16-23). He must love having someone to hate, because the bible tells us that he knits people together in the womb (Ps. 139:13-15). So I guess every now and then, he uses his special magic god powers of righteous justice to decide exactly who to make deformed, just so he can hate them. The almighty loving God is also partial to accepting the occasional human sacrifice (Num. 31:40, Jud. 11:29-40) In the second example, a girl (Jephthah's daughter) was sacrificed to God because of her fathers' vows. Of course, if you question God on the subject, he denies accepting human sacrifice at all, claiming the whole idea to be abhorrent to him (Jer. 19:4-6). Nice lie your holiness! The only time God actually behaves himself, is when he is worried about how he appears to others, and not because it is the right thing to do (Ex. 32:11-14 and Num. 14:15-20). In fact, the supposed sacrifice on the cross was (as many Christians will tell you) was for his own glory.
Moral god? Don't make me laugh! I'll tell you what does make me laugh however, is the story where Elisha gets God to make some bears maul and kill 42 young boys for calling him baldy (2Kin. 2:23-24). It's a good job that they didn't call him a specky big nosed feminist and abolitionist! If they had, the loving, forgiving and slow to anger god of the bible would probably eternally curse mankind (not again!), and make us all lesbian Moabite hunchbacks. That would give him a real reason to be cruel to us. Clearly, the nature of God does not give an explanation as to where the "better" aspects of human nature come from. Modern evolutionary approaches are now, just starting to provide an explanation for the existence of morality.
More krazee kristianity here: http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

941. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46421 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 7:00 am

Another good point Baron, and we do know where he lives.

By the way, I think the KKK were actually formed by immigrants from David's church

942. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46417 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 6:52 am

1. I do not mischaracterise faith. Of course there are people who believe in the way that Dawkins describes. However there are a far greater number of people who believe in the way that I described. When Dawkins uses a definition of faith which no thinking or reasonable Christian, or indeed any version of Christianity would accept, then he is being deceitful.

Versus confession that the world was created in 6 days- What the ....


Of course David is lying about rationality and faith, because he never provides any evidence or engages in any meaningful debates - he just likes to insult and call us all fundies - he really is a very sad case. If he didnt believe in 6 day creationism himself, he could more profitably put his energies into talking round the fundies. At least fundies are honest, they stick to the teaching of their book. Afterall, god, paul, jesus and peter all say genesis is literal. David never provides a case otherwise.

943. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46388 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 5:02 am

Nice post Coel.
The lie that David put in his second letter that there is a witch hunt against creationist biochemists really annoys me. As a biochemist and one time theistic evolutionist, I provided evidence that that claim was a lie. He continues to perpetuate it and wont retract it.
That also points out another fallacy of David's: That does not work either. I can cite numerous examples of people who were atheists who have gone the other way.

Well I am one of a rappidly growing number who rejected god.

As for the science of the gaps (brain dead theistic propaganda mantra) it has a good track record of removing god - earthquakes, lightning, disease to name but a few

I hope scottishgeologist comes back and pushes him on his papal hypocricy - did he make that public declaration that the pope was the antichrist or not? (love the way you just go straight for the jugular with him)

944. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46371 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 3:49 am

Had me going there. I think I've been reading too many of devolved's posts that I missed the satire. Of course, that is more of a reflection on creationists than on me.
Pewkatchoo, I've sent you a PM

945. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46364 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 3:24 am

BTW 14 - thats a bit old for a paedophile. Remind me, what age was mary again? Looks like your god is a paedo by your reckoning. I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could fin other paedos in the bible. Incidentally, What age were lots daughters that he offered to the mob and then shagged himself? And this was the guy that god deemed was the only one worth saving from soddom and gomorah. Hmmm, I smell bullshit!

BTW I love the way you dismantle the arguement for the non existence of jesus - NOT! What is your evidence that he existed? Personally, I dont rule out the posibility that he may have existed (but he wasn't what he is made out to be), but your rebuttal is pathetic. Here is some evidence that he didn't: the josephus passage is not in keeping with the words of the devout jew that we know he was. He calls jesus the christ and implies he was more than a man - blasphemy for a jew. The most reasonable explanation is that the early church made this up - for reasons we can go into if you really want to be educated - which I doubt. The paragraph also interupts the surrounding paragraphs.

946. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46358 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 3:02 am

Steve, I am quite happy to answer this. I believe that sex is a gift from God designed for one man and one woman within the context of marriage. I realise that to say this will invite a chorus of ridicule. But perhaps you could allow me to ask one simple question? Do you think polygamy is wrong? And why? Do you think having sex with a 14-year-old is wrong? And why?

Liar I'm still waiting. Now justify why it is wrong. To remind you, here is my post again

"I dont neccessarily think polygamy is wrong if all involved are aware of it and happy with it, and there is love. Personally, it's not my bag. Paedophilia is quite obvious really. It is usually non consenting and breaks the trust of the victim, leading to hurt and problems in forming other functional relationships - particularly with members of the opposite sex. It often leads to feelings of worthlessness and takes away the ability to enjoy relational pleasure. Victims often resort to drugs, alcohol, promiscuity (leading to further feelings of worthlessness and self loathing) and self harm. About a third of victims develop eating disorders too. Victims are scarred and their right to a fulfilled life is violated. I could rattle on - my former church had loads of such victims, and I got myself involved with one, so I know what I'm talking about.
How does that compare to a loving homosexual situation?"

You are using faith to justify discrimination. Should a Homosexual be head of your church? What about a liar? thats wrong too isn't it - and everyone does it. So, why is homosexuality so evil that it carries a death sentence in the bible?

By the way, please give the Conway-morris quote in context. You were challenged on that before. Incidentally, he is an anglican. Quoting him is not evidence that christianity is not a meme. Please raise your game. Did you have christian parent? Did you get taught it from a young age? Do muslims have muslim parents? do they get taught it from an early age? etc...

947. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46351 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 2:46 am

Epeeist

The thing about these people is their inability to consider the consequences of their ideas. Err, light had to change its velocity to account for the fact that the universe is 6000 years old, but the furthest galaxies are over 13 billion light years away

The thing that makes me laugh is that these folk claim thart the universal constants are evidence of fine tuning, saying that the universe was set up for life. They claim that if the constants were different, life could not exist. Then they go and tweak them to suit their muppetry - effectivly negating their ow arguement. The bible tells us that rainbows only existed after the flood. As a physicist, could you give us some information on what that would mean for the universe?

948. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46350 by BillySands on May 31, 2007 at 2:32 am

Sorry Billy, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here.

No problem Nails- I'm glad of the break
Devolved, if you are still reading, why do you always run away?
I know all about sickle cell anemia - my first degree was in parasitology! But please tell me where any evolutionist claimed that the mutation was an increase in complexity? If something is adaptive and confers a new function, how is it a degradation? Again, you spout lies and avoid issues. Why dont you take the opsin gene challenge?

949. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46143 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 11:13 am

Steve
A while back, someone challenged him on this and his only response was it was wrong because the bible said so. He even made some derogtory comments about homosexual bishops elsewhere. I asked him to justify why it was wrong, and he said he would be happy to (comment 110 http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1137,Would-the-World-Be-Safer-Without-Religion,Gregg-Easterbrook-Beliefnetcom,page3#comments)

Still no reply. I suspect it is because he believes this for no other reason than because a silly book says so. He claims this is a source of moral absolutes. He asked me why paedophilia was wrong and I said why, so, I waiting to see what his response is - I presume he has no answer, but would like to see him being honest about the fact that his faith makes him have bad attitudes, and that the bible is full of bad laws

950. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46139 by BillySands on May 30, 2007 at 10:47 am

Hi BaronOchs,
It is just another example of selective and wishful theistic thinking.
I'm still waiting to hear a response from David on the morality of homosexuality, and would love to hear him explain the fact that he "confessed" the pope to be the antichrist, but says that he isnt. Oh well, I suppose it makes sense to him, I'll stick with a good old dose of clear thinking for now