1251. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16022 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:09 am

Hi rydrum2112
Do you have the link to that site?

cheers

Billy

1252. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16020 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:07 am

"In any event, at best the writings of Josephus suggest that there was a man named Jesus whose followers attracted the attention of some authorities. In other words, it does very little to confirm the biblical account of Jesus' life and/or ministry."

And like many (if not all) the gospel writers josephus was not an eye witness to the life of jesus anyway

1253. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16017 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 7:04 am

"Already have as it is there in Josephus. It is your obligation to demonstrate it is a forgery (or even an interpolation) which you havn't done)"

I have challenged it, you have failed to defend it. Prove it is not a forgery. A forged interpolation is by far the most reasonable explanation

Can you prove to me that brahmin does not exist? It's amazing how theists change their tune concerning their own beliefs

1254. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16014 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 6:53 am

gimlibengloin
Am I to assume that you are one of those who would require to see someone like eusebius forge it with your own eyes because it doesn't suit you. People get convicted of crimes (that no one saw them commit) all the time on the basis of evidence. If you are a theist, then you seem to accept some pretty bizzare and unsubstantiated claims from your holy book as fact. You incidentally have provided no evidence of your own.
Do you accept that the passage was an insertion? Do you not think the paragraph above and below make perfect sence with out it? Surely josepus would have rewritten it so that it flowed?
The passage is never quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen, despite its enormous apologetic value. Origen certainly quotes the reference to jesus' brother around 200CE

1255. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16003 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 6:15 am

gimlibengloin,
I'm going to assume that you hve not read my comment no 437 and repost some of it again for you to read

The antiqities 18:3:2-4 2. "But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

Verse 4 makes no sense. What other sad calamity? was the christ coming a sad calamity? take out the jesus verse and it makes sense
"2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

It is obviously an insertion.
Full text here if you are interested http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

Perhaps you could explain away this problem and the lack of early reference to this text and the why a jew would call jesus the christ?
Theists need to learn to think for themselves and not accept so called authority. present your evidence if you have any

1256. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15986 by BillySands on January 4, 2007 at 5:13 am

Hi Down_Under,

I cant believe people claim the bible is not racist.
Theo,
lets not forget that no ammonite or Moabite may enter the congregation of god Nehemiah 13:1 (oops, Jesus had a moabite ancestor (Ruth))
No stranger, foreigner, or uncircumcised person can eat the Passover.Ex 12:43, 45, 48
God favors Israelites "above all people." Ex 19:5
If a priest's daughter marries "a stranger" she can't eat any holy things. lev 22:12
If a priest's daughter marries "a stranger" she can't eat any holy things. Deut 22:12
If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." Deut 13:6-10
God commands the Israelites to "blot out the rembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (looks like he failed since the bible remembers them) A few hundred years later God orders Saul to kill of the Amalekites "both man and woman, infant and suckling." (1 Sam.15:2-3) Deut 25:19
Had enough? there are plenty more and Jesus thought of the gentiles as second class citizens
Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. Mark 7:27
Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. Matt 10:5-6.

1257. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15867 by BillySands on January 3, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Theo, concerning the wikipedia article, did it ever occur to you that some fundie may question the neutrality simply because it does not agree with them.
How can you dismiss the other gods who are saviours, been resurrected and born of virgins as insignificant. There are also coins and documents that date to about 200BCE that comemmorate the ascent of Mithras to heaven. Ifanyone was faking it, it was the christians who forged the testimony of josephus.
Concerning women in the bible
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!
on slavery
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 their welfare to those of 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!

1258. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #15688 by BillySands on January 2, 2007 at 4:31 am

Paul

"David, please tell us what, if anything, is wrong with the reasoning in the paragraph above."

Oh that's easy, Scotland reach the world cup final? :-)

joadist
Every time whe disprove a messianic prophecy, or show the world is not 6000 years old and flat, we disprove the christian god. It is amazing that all a theist can do is point to (soon to be filled) gaps in our knowledge as evidence of the certainty of his conviction that he and his cult alone are miraculously informed of the absolute truth of the universe - a truth that sees them alone as special and escaping eternal torment (invented by themselves). These people need to pitied, not scolded.

1259. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15686 by BillySands on January 2, 2007 at 4:03 am

Theo
"The scholarly world is divided over the mentioned passage, some, observing that it was written in Josephus's style deem it authentic. However, I followed your link and found that the current consensus of the matter is," It seems clear that, whatever the current fashion of scholarship, no conclusive evidence exists to allow a final closure of this question."

The only people who think the verse is authentic are those who want it to be. Any impartial person can clearly see it has bee stuck in between two paragraphs and disrupts the flow. Again, as for the style, no committed jew would refer to jesus as the christ.




"This discussion over the reliability of the bible is fruitless because the premise advanced by some is:
1. the bible contains miracles
2. miracles do not exist
3. therefore the bible is false

Thus if God does not exist to a person, the bible, whether it is reliable or not, would not really matter. If by some stretch of the imagination the bible is proven false, then it does not mean that God does not exist, it means he did not write it. Then I would hold the Deist position."

I think you miss the point here, the bible is the christians evidence of there god. Show it to be false, you show their god is false. Why would you hold a deist position? Why not jump to islam, or better still atheism? You obviously think there must be some god. Why?

Mark
Sorry, I forgot to say, this is Daniel 1:4:
"He was to teach them [jewish captives] the language and literature of the Babylonians."

It just makes so much more sense that this was written some time after Babylon.

Down_Under
The whole man god thing is fatal to christianity. Their whole religion is pagan. There is nothing new about it, and it is just a collection of recycled myths, and the life of jesus is based on OT non prophecies that are not about jesus, but are claimed to be so by the gospel writers.

1260. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15132 by BillySands on December 29, 2006 at 4:17 am

Amen Hopeful,
He clearly does not think. how absurd was that comment about jesus and his wife? He has decided that he will not be budged, whereas i am sure that many here will re-evaluate their positions in the light of new evidence. May I suggest that David answers the challenges and not circumnavigate them. May I also suggest that he takes time to get the point of comments. It just reflects very badly on you when you dont do this. Are you this bad when reading the bible too?

1261. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15116 by BillySands on December 29, 2006 at 2:49 am

Hi Mark,
I just realised that your main objection to the chapter being about Babylon (their language) is refuted by the bible "He was to teach them [jewish captives] the language and literature of the Babylonians."
The language was clearly different enough that they had to learn it

1262. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15048 by BillySands on December 28, 2006 at 1:37 pm

The thing about David is that he has a very low standard for what he considers evidence in favour of his weak position. Then when he gets put under too much pressure, he throws his toys out of the pram and says "you dont understand, and so and so is a professional mathematicion/astronomer/theologian etc". That doesn't stop him commenting on things he clearly does not understand (see his own thread for proof). His mind is closed to debate and as some are finding, he resorts to ad hominem, straw men and avoidance strategies.

It is funny, no matter how irretreviably you think you are down the atheistic path, someone like David comes along and makes you realise that it is possible to be convinced even more that christianity is totally wrong. thanks Dave.

Good luck guys and may your patience last

1263. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #15024 by BillySands on December 28, 2006 at 9:32 am

Hi Mark,

Seems like there has been a lot of activity here recently. Sorry for the short response, but I don't think your arguement about the eagle cuts it. Prophecy should be clear, or it is open to so much interpretation. A clear example woyuld be Isaiah 45. There is definately no confusion there (pobably written by the persians though. If I am going to be interpretive I could make a case that it is about the Germans. Fly like an eagle, eagle stantard, move rappidly, (blitzkrieg). Exiled from homeland (anywhere thwey were living) and sent to Egypt (concentration camps) where they were sold as slaves but no one wanted to buy then (forced labour) They were also starved here and in the ghettos.
Deut 28 is probably more a set of threats to propogate the continuation of jewish monotheism and probably referrs to no future events

I'm affraid that Daniel (probably more concerned with antiochus IV) is actually full of historical inaccuracies, and this is why many think it was written about 167BCE. This is an introduction to this, and there are other problems:http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/daniel.html

1264. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14956 by BillySands on December 27, 2006 at 8:52 am

Good article. Go on any church message board and you will see these myths. Maybe we should encourage others to bring the message of the god delusion to churches via their message boards. David A Robertson has inspired a few of us to do that on his site http://www.fcosonline.org/
I have Just skimmed David Robertson's post. There is so much wrong with it. I wont waste my time on it, but will point out how arrogant it is of the religious to claim their particular brand of religion is the only true one.
-YAWWWWN!

1265. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14786 by BillySands on December 25, 2006 at 4:39 am

Fedler,
I've noticed how the religious try and justify their beliefs peudoscientifically when it suits them. I found this one on the David's site:

"God knew well about female eggs, since He created them. It even speaks about the ''seed of the woman'' in Genesis 3:15."

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1790.0

the verse isn't even about eggs, but ofspring. It is a poor attempt to find evidence that god knows of something that contempory society could not possibly know. Needless to say, I put him right - and David, I would do the same in a scientific context too.

1266. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14546 by BillySands on December 23, 2006 at 4:48 am

Martin, isn't amazing how christians try an iron out biblical difficulties by inventing evidence and convoluted "thinking"

1267. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14532 by BillySands on December 23, 2006 at 3:28 am

Perhaps David would like to tell us why he does not have aproblem with evolution. The bible prohibits it. It talks of creating man out of dust and says let animals reproduce more of their own kind (see gen 1 and 2). I have already come across posts on his own site that that say as much.
As for his gripe about taking the bible literally, jesus and Paul take it literally.
Matt 24:38-39 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that [Noah] entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
Jesus believed that sex and Adam and Eve were created "from the beginning." But the universe is about 13.6 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion, sex a billion years or so, and humans (depending on how you define "human") for a couple million years.

2Peter 3:5-6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished"

john also says that his gospel was written so that we may believe that jesus was the messiah (John 20:31).
Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with a witness account that is not meant to be taken literally?

1268. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14530 by BillySands on December 23, 2006 at 3:06 am

Hi mummymonkey,
Thanks for mentioning Poecillia formosa. I knew there was a naturally occuring one, but could never remember its name.

martin,
If you want a laugh, check the genealogy of Jesus in luke 3. It is VERY different

1269. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14456 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 2:18 pm

Interesting point Martin. Presumably it could give XY if a haploid X cell fused with a haploid Y cell. That may explain why she had a beard in the life of Brian:-), but as Andrew points out, the virgin birth was made up anyway

1270. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14425 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 11:44 am

The is an all female "species" of fish. Actually, it is a hybrid of the black molly Poecillia latipinna and the mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). They rely on males from a related species to kick start the developmental process. The male has no genetic input in the offspring. The process is called gynogenesis.
Isn't the evolved world cool

1271. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14404 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 9:48 am

NLHBs,
Perhaps we should do something to improve Satan's -or to give him his ancient Egyptian name-Set-An's public immage and celebrate his un birthday on the 25th. Afterall, he never gets any party invites

1272. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14360 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 6:16 am

Martin,

I'm glad my countries university dont use the bible as a text book, but Liberty University does.
As an interesting aside, one of my friends who was studying divinity at Glasgow said they have a high drop out rate, because people start to reject the teaching ofthe bible. There is some hope yet- oh an he dropped out too.

1273. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #14357 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 6:11 am

I believe the anti Horace was called ..... wait for it...
Set-An

1274. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14316 by BillySands on December 22, 2006 at 2:34 am

"What an awesome posting! I LOVE what I can learn from fellow Atheists!"

NLHB – could you let me know what you learnt from Torbjorn's post?"

That David doesnt understand what he is argueing about?

1275. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #14248 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 4:23 pm

Hi D_U, It seems that the story of jesus was common in mythology. Has everyone seen the Mithras video here? http://richarddawkins.net/article,441,Merry-Mithras,QI-BBC2
Mithras is essentially is Jesus (before jesus)

1276. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14240 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 3:47 pm

It seems that David does not like us to have the freedom of speech that we let him enjoy. At the time of writing, this post has been deleted twice from his site.
"It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist christians react whenever your faith is attacked. You really should let me write your posts for you. It's the usual comments - Straw men - AD hominem - Hitler was an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is atheistic' (a bit like arguing christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'christianity is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance.
I have just written to Richard Dawkins and congratulated him on producing such a thoughtful and balanced book. I also warned him that the christian fundamentalists who inhabit this particular area of cyberspace were being indoctrinated against atheists."

The funny thing is that it is a response to a misrepresentation of atheists that he made, AND it is essentially his words I am using with atheist replaced with christian. His original comment is here
http://richarddawkins.net/articleTrollComments,442,The-Trouble-with-Atheism,Rod-Liddle-Channel-4,page1 and says
"Thanks Evolved and others for bringing my attention to this. And thanks for the e-mail address. I have just written to Channel 4 as you suggested and congratulated them on producing such a fair, thoughtful and balanced programme. I also warned them that the atheist fundamentalists who inhabit this particular area of cyberspace were being encouraged to write in and complain.

It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist atheists react whenever your faith is attacked. You really should let me write your posts for you. It's the usual comments - Straw men - AD hominem - Hitler was not an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is not atheistic' (a bit like arguing Christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'atheism is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance.

This programme did however prove me wrong about one thing. Maybe Channel 4 is a bit more balanced than I gave them credit for.

Have fun...."

Martin, you may want to send your responses to his site too. I dont think he wants his readers to see them. Or at least that is my interpretation of what he meant when he said he will reply to you on this site

Keep it up Dodgy Dave

1277. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14235 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 3:18 pm

It appears that David keeps removing my post from his website. That is just typical of fundies! They expect privilages that they are not prepared to give. We dont censor him (and neither we should)
3rd time lucky? Maybe I should point this out to a news paper if it continues?

1278. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14199 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Damm, that shoild have been christian fundamentalists!
Can is still get a prize?

1279. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14198 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 1:05 pm

I've just returned the trolls, post to his site with modifications. Let's see if the get angered by it http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1797.0

"It's amusing to watch how you fundamentalist christians react whenever your faith is attacked. You really should let me write your posts for you. It's the usual comments - Straw men - AD hominem - Hitler was an atheist - and my personal favourite 'Communism is atheistic' (a bit like arguing christianity is not theistic). And I also love 'christianity is not a dogmatic belief system'. Yeah like this website just oozes non dogmatism, rationalism and tolerance.
I have just written to Richard Dawkins and congratulated him on producing such a thoughtful and balanced book. I also warned him that the atheist fundamentalists who inhabit this particular area of cyberspace were being indoctrinated against atheists
"

Do I win a prize?

1280. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14135 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 8:47 am

Hi Fedler,
This is obviously a very emotional subject, and I hope you take my comment in a well meaning way, and realise that I am just sharing and not telling you what to do.
I too needed answers for something. I prayed and prayed with no answer. That frustrated and upset me even more. It made the whole situation even worse, because I felt god was abandoning me, and no good came from that situation. I found that trusting in god was not helping me move on, it was only keeping me in a bad place. I now realise that I had no evidence that god exists, and that there is no evidence thathe exists. I now realise that I was deluded. The reason that no answers came is not because god is there happy to not intervene in my torment, but because he is not there. I feel much better now that I know the truth. I actually feel comfort realising that there is no god
Hope that has been of some use to you in your quest
All the best
Billy

1281. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14128 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 8:31 am

Oh and there is no course on destroying christianity. It is just lots of people coming to the same glaringly obvious conclisions independantly

1282. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14127 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 8:29 am

it seems David is still calling us Fundamentalists. I am prepared to chage my view in the light of evidence. He is not. That makes him a fundie, not the majority of us. He doesn't understand the term ad hominem properly
http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=1797.0
Interesting ponits david, When I have time, I will come on your site. I noticed you left out the insults you threw at others - naughty hypocrite!

And yes David, you are far from perfect. By the way, want to buy a copy of that T shirt?

1283. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14100 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 5:45 am

I found this site on whether god is outside of space and time http://www.ukapologetics.net/godoutoftime.htm
And guess what, the theologians can't agree. So, when David tries to dodge the question of who created god with this nonsense, he is actually using a far from biblically supported point of view. The fact that the evidence comes for the bible is of course not without it's own fatal flaws. The verses used are incredibly weak. The use of the term everlasting for example does not put you out with time. Infact, the bible uses everlasting for the earth and I think mountains too. I will have to check. So, davids arguement that he has indicated that he does not understand is taken from the bible (using selective verses and ignoring others and contradicts some professional theologians). He hasn't even shown that god wrote the bible, let alone seen or spoken with god, or even proved that god even exists, so coupled with the arguement from incredulity, this is evidence that an unproven being created the universe. Is that a fair representation David?
Considering the consequences of choosing the wrong god David, I would think that you would at least attempt to understand the arguement.
So, like we keep saying you have a highly irrational faith, NOT evidence

1284. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #14099 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 5:22 am

Hi Eggplantbren,
Dawkins talks about the eye in the blindwatchmaker. There is a you tube clip of it (it is in several parts and I cant remember which one it is in) The first clip is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDshYyv9Nfc

1285. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14096 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 4:59 am

Well, Satan is an anagram of Santa. I think the fundies did a bad pr job on him and changed his name

1286. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14088 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 4:43 am

"Since a child can be born without the need for sexual intercourse, even in biblical times, there is zero need to suppose any god was involved."

That and the fact we have already shown the virgin birth prophecy to be a non prophecy concerning jesus anyway.
It's amazing the straws that david grasps at to try and cite evidence. No need to believe god was involves, and the prophecy is not about jesus, but god still did it. How illogical is that! All because a self contradictory and inaccurate book used to justify the deeds of an intolerant people says so. No that is crazy faith, not evidence.

1287. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14086 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 4:37 am

martin, if you want a laugh, look this up. David, do the same if you want educated.
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/search/label/God
God in the bible alone has killed in excess of 2,270,365 people, and plans to kill at least another 3.25 billion. Oh, and satan has only killed 10

1288. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14083 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 4:26 am

Looks like I will have to go on Davids site, and if I win even one convert, that will annoy him sooooo much.
One problem with David is that he tries to counter Torbjorn's excellent post by saying I don't understand it, but someone who I WANT to be right disagrees with you (if indeed they do). But wait, this is David's "killer" arguement, but he clearly doesn't understand what he is argueing about - doh! Do you possess any feet David? Or have you shot them both off several times over? Oh looks like blind faith and poor research to me.
David Why do you think that ignorance is an arguement for god? That's the point I was making about Martin's bold letters. Your god is so full of himself, has spoken directly to people in the bible. So where the hell is he. It's not that hard to find someone like that. What a stupid thing to say.
I can see where NLHBs is comming from. David, give me a 2. Not a plastic symbol or the like, but give me a 2! you cant, because as an entity, it doesn't exist - oh, wait I see why you believe in god then.....
Ever notice that central to the christian beLIEf, there is a LIE?
Right, I'm off into cyberspace to see what the so called evidence for god existing out side of space and time is. I can guess a few stupid verses, lets see if Im right.

1289. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #14053 by BillySands on December 21, 2006 at 2:16 am

Hi Mark,
If the verse had said their symbol was the eagle, not that they were like an eagle, I would think you had a point. The greeks under Alexander (also totally alien) moved faster than the Romans ever did. And Deut 28 finishes by mentioning slavery in egypt. Therefore, I am far from convinced.
Best wishes
Billy

1290. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14004 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 3:43 pm

Nice one Torbjorn. Very well put!

1291. Two Central Mysteries In Genome Inheritance Solved

Comment #13986 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 1:40 pm

I just realised that before the evolution of tightly regulated chromosome separation mechanism, there was probably frequent uneven partitioning. I wonder if this aided in the evolution of genome size? Does anyone know if there is evidence of whole chromosome duplications and divergence in any genomes?

1292. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13983 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 1:16 pm

FACT, ID is not supported in peer reviewed scientific journals.

1293. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13982 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 1:11 pm

What a fud! I was under the impression that judge jones is a christian as well http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html
Happy anniversary of you defeat Dumbfukski

1294. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13980 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 12:11 pm

Yeah Fedler, just saw it on the news. It is interesting that they are all male. A similar thing happens in some beetles and bees. Unfertilised eggs produce males. It even occurs in fish (can never remember the species, but it is an all female species produced by hybridisation and uses a male from a related species to kick start development, but the male has no genetic input - they are related to guppies, mollies and swordtails if that helps any)

Now, before the fundies go see, it doesn't happen in people, and if it did, it could only produce females. This is because females have two X chromosomes, and males have onlt one and a Y chromosome, that females dont have. A woman can only ever produce XX female, since she has no Y. I'm sure there is a theist out there tring to postulate that jesus was a bearded lady.

1295. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13978 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 11:55 am

Hi Mark,
I obviously have too much time on my hands. Apologies to those who are allergic to the bible, but this is Marks evidence that he wishes to present. It would be unfair and closed minded not to discuss the evidence. Here are some comments on how Deut 28 is not specific to Rome
"+ invasion of Israel by a powerful army from a distant country, speaking an alien (non-Semitic) language,
who would besiege their cities until they fell;"

Assyrians? Babylonians? Medes? Seleucids? Ptolemies?

"+ in those sieges they would be driven to cannibalism;"

Jeremiah 19:9 talks of sieges and cannibalism. This is not about rome

"+ the survivors would be removed from their own land;"

Assyria and Babylon exiled the jews

"+ they would be sold as slaves;"

"Nehemiah 5 talks of selling family members as slaves and talks of hunger again (this is post Babylon."

"+ they would be dispersed into many countries;"

Assyria? 2 kin 17:23, Samaria (by the Assyrians) 2 kin 17:26 Media (by the Assyrians ) 2 kin 18:11, Babylon 2 kin: 24:15 etc

"+ they would be persecuted and attacked wherever they went;"

Assyria, Babylon

"+ they would find no stability anywhere, but would have to move from one country to another;"

I don't see this in deut 28

"+ they would be diminished, yet would continue to survive as a people and retain their identity;"

Again, it doesn't say that. Deut 28:64 actually says they will worship foreign gods (in other words, lose their identity)

"+ attempts would be made to draw them back to the land of Israel, as if fishing for them;"

Again, where does it say that?

"+ but only after being hunted down would they eventually be caused to regather there;"

No mention of a return. Infact, it says they will be going back to Egypt (verse 68) infact, god says he is breaking a promise here. I could however imagine the Babylonians sending them to Egypt, who they defeated

"+ they would not go back as a reformed people, believing and honouring their God, but as still secular;"

Where does it say this? Whey will still be religious though. See above

"+ they would at last form a nation again in their land;"

Where does it say this? They returned home from Assyria and babylonia

"+ they would have Jerusalem as its capital, following its liberation from Gentile control;"

Where?

"+ as dwellers in that land they would experience fierce opposition from their near relatives the Arab peoples;"

Babylonians? Assyrians? Egyptians?

"+ the Arabs would claim the same territory;"

Where?

+ the Arabs would lay claim to Jerusalem, seeking control of it for themselves;

Where/ Babylonians?

"+ Jerusalem would be a fundamental bone of contention, causing ongoing international stresses."

Where?


"And so it has come about. All these things have indeed happened, detail by detail, just as the Bible predicted. "

Prediction or history pretending to be prophecy? Some of these claims are not backed up in deut 28. Those that are apply to Assyria or Babylon, not Rome.
I don't know if this is so, but did the Romans send the jews to Egypt in ships? And were they bought? All this fits better with the theory that the Pentateuch was actually written around the5th – 6th century BCE. Are there any extant version of the Pentateuch that have been carbon dated to before that time? That would convince me otherwise. I don't think there are though

1296. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13971 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 10:56 am

Hi NLHB,
You are right. I am tempted to go on his site and cause carnage, and let them see how nasty he is, although he seems to tone it down a bit there. I like the guys on this thread though, and have found them to put a lot of thought into their responses, which I disagree with :-), but that's cool.

1297. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13970 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 10:45 am

that jesus is so fickle. the jews used to be the chosen people, then the spanish, then the catholics, then the protestants, now the germans. When do atheists get their turn?

1298. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13965 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 10:12 am

Hi Fedler, May I offer my condolences too. I started questioning myself, partly as a result of a traumatic incident involving another christian and partly because some things just never made sense to me. I found it hard to give up my faith initially, I guess I still wanted it to be true, but I think you have to be honest with yourself. To be honest, when I look back, my faith kept me in a one sided parasitic relationship. I found trusting god just made things worse. Dont know if you have felt this, but the more you move away from faith the better things look. giving up faith is hard, but I can definately say it is worth it in the long term.

Martin, because I couldn't explain how italics and bold letters appear on your posts, I thought god did it. now that it has been explained, i no longer believe in you. I wont make the mistake of inventing god to explain my ignorance again. Just incase you are testing my faith, can I have a BMX for Xmas?
One of my christian frirnds just gave me the case against christ. I thought that was amazingly open minded of him, until I realised it was an apologetic work - git! oh well, I suppose I did send him an iron maiden Xmas card.

1299. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13945 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 8:17 am

I stil don't get this line of thinking that if we cant explain something, then god must have did it. All that does is show the limitations of human intellect.
Theists. I have been trying in vain to get david robertson to tell me the evidence that god exists outside of space and time. Does anyone here want to provide their evidence for this. There is no rush, some of you have other people to answer first. That is a credit to you. If only DR were the same:-(

1300. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13912 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 3:41 am

And one final thing for now, snow flakes look designed. Are they?