101. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78623 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 11:10 pm

TETRARTONIS
Well, I think the religious person's view is that Christianity specifically discourages mass murder...

CARR
William Lane Craig debates many atheists, and he wanted to debate Dawkins.

Watch Craig defend mass murder....


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

102. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78622 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 11:02 pm

ARCHBISHOP UNWIN
"There are few things more annoying than people saying 'I know what you mean.'"

CARR
One of the great ironic statements of our time, by a man whose writing often has a fog index of over 30.

ARCHBISHOP UNWIN
'So to be in Christ is to be committed to this
action for the sake of each other and for the world; the hope of our calling is the hope of this mutuality whose full possibility is given by the one faith and one baptism into our one Lord.'

CARR
I know what you mean.

ARCHBISHOP UNWIN (attacking Dawkins)

"The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to," Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex."

He urged atheist writers to better understand religion.

PROFESSOR ALVIN PLANTINGA (attacking Dawkins)
'First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple...'

CARR
How can you understand something that is just being made up on the spur of the moment?

103. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78507 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 10:55 am

Lennox was on Premier Christian Radio today

See http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm?i=680 in the next few days for details

104. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78465 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 2:15 am

Veronique,
didn't Taunton's comments on page 2 of this thread give you an idea of the mentality of religious people.

TAUNTON
Anyway, why do I say that Deu 28v49 onwards is about Rome....

Because Moses said: "The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand"

CARR
What sort of mentality can say that this is a specific prophecy about Rome?

105. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78446 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 12:06 am

War on religion?

Writing books. Talking on the radio.

Is there no end to the horrors atheists are prepared to use in the war on religion?

What next? Atheists have already deployed the T-shirt with a symbol on it, so what could be next?

Flyers? Leaflets? That's the sort of utterly despicable thing an atheist might do in their crusade against religion.

106. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78444 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 12:00 am

TAUNTON
I can envisage a few infantrymen being carried on each ship, but please, what on earth is the point of chariots if the enemy was going to try attacking an island?

CARR
At last we know why the Allied Forces avoided attacking the Germans on the Channel Islands, preferring to go for the mainland.

What use would their tanks have been if they were trying to attack an island?

Mark is getting into typical fundie mode.

He is just throwing out huge amounts of junk, because he has no evidence.

Tyre has been rebuilt. There is a city there.

Mark cannot face reality, so he thinks chariots are useless on an island.

107. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77042 by stevencarrwork on October 8, 2007 at 9:28 am

MARK TAUNTON

64 And Yahweh shall scatter you among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there you shall serve other gods, which neither you nor your fathers have known, even wood and stone.....

I ask again: what about that is not clear?...

And the prophecy was fulfilled....

CARR
SO Jews serve wood and stone gods nowadays?

And the Roman gods were thought of as being made of wood?


Of course, it is an amazingly specific prophecy, what with the Jews being the only people to have been spread all over the earth :-)
Another prophecy busted.....

108. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77040 by stevencarrwork on October 8, 2007 at 9:21 am

It really is not controversial that Ezekiel was referring to the island of Tyre, and her daughter settlements on the coastline.

All of Taunton's word games are just junk.

It is like someone taking 'middle of the sea', finding where somebody refers to a ship in the middle of the sea in a painting by Turner, and declaring that 'middle of the sea' actually means in a painting.

Everybody would laugh if somebody tried that on in English.

So why Mark is trying it in Hebrew is beyond me.

And, of course, Ezekiel said Tyre would become a bare rock.

It isn't.

The prophecy is busted.

Even without Ezekiel 29 where he admits that Nebuchadnezzar did not get anything from his attack on Tyre.

109. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76941 by stevencarrwork on October 7, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Perhaps Taunton , in his brave battle against reality, might like to read Isaiah 23 where Tyre is also described as an island.

This is all so 'specific', yet Taunton tells us that these Hebrew words of Ezekiel have 'broad meanings', and that when Ezekiel said 'the middle of the sea', he meant on the mainland.

Does he not realise that he is destroying the credibility of Christianity in our eyes?

110. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76940 by stevencarrwork on October 7, 2007 at 10:37 pm

TAUNTON on EZEKIEL 26
The sheer uniqueness of it (along with the specificity of it...

CARR
Speficifity?

TAUNTON on EZEKIEL 26
Yes, the daughters belonged to Tyre. They were either villages around the city, or actually women from her; either could be "in the field", as meaning the agricultural land adjacent.

CARR
What a joke!

Taunton has to twist what it says to get around the fact that it says Nebuchadnezzar will destroy what is in the middle of the sea , and what has daughter settlements ie the island.

And it is so 'specific' that he cannot tell us what these 'daughters' were!

There is zero mention of Alexander.

And the whole area where Tyre was is now covered with buildings, despite the claim that it would become a bare rock.

The prophecy is so 'specific' that Taunton has to claim that nobody knows exactly where Old Tyre was.

How specific is that?

111. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76861 by stevencarrwork on October 7, 2007 at 1:52 pm

TAUNTON
TO illustrate: Luke's account of Paul's journey by ship to Italy is loaded with specialist technical terms relating to ships, sailors, navigation, sea and weather conditions, local geography, etc. Recent comparative analysis in relation to first century Mediterranean maritime history has demonstrated just how precise and accurately used his language is.

CARR
There's a big fat zero of evidence Taunton came up with.

Perhaps the author of Luke had been on a sea voyage himself?

Or had read accounts of sea-journeys?

No, the only way anybody could get such knowledge was by being a prisoner on a ship....


Paul was allegedly a prisoner on a ship.

So why did the sailors instruct him in all this technical knowledge?

Did the captain say 'The prisoners on the ship. Have you taught them how to sail this thing yet?. For goodness sakes, educate these prisoners. We can't deliver them to Rome until they've learned technical sailing terms, proving that they were on this ship.'

But let us look at some of this amazing technical language, and we will see that it often comes from poetry and fiction, not from real life.

I am indebted to Neil Godfrey for this knowledge.


http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/acts-27-28-an-eyewitness-account-part-2/


Acts 27:41 'they ran the ship aground' = EPEKEILAN THN NAUN

This is a distinctively poetic (Homeric) phrase.

This is the only time in the New Testament 'NAUS' is used for a 'ship'. Everywhere else the author of Luke-Acts uses PLOIA (Lk.5.3, 7, 11; 8.22, 37; Acts20.13, 38; 21.2, 3, 6).

Another word used nowhere else in the NT (nor even in the LXX) is EPIKELLEIN = 'to ground'. 'In fact, EPIKELLEIN and [its uncompounded form] KELLEIN are poetic forms' prose prefers EPOKELLEIN or OKELLEIN.' (MacDonald, p.94)

Commenting on EPEKEILAN ('beached') the Lake and Cadbury commentary on Acts says: 'According to Blass this is an Homeric form not found in prose-writers, who used OKELLW and EPOKELLW, . . . . He compares Odyssey IX 148 . . . and 546. . . . It is also remarkable that the word NAUN is used only here in Acts, which always has the ordinary Hellenistic word PLOION. Blass’ suggestion that there is a conscious reminisence of Homer in this collocation of two unusual words is very attractive. If Luke was acquainted with Aratus and Epimenides, his knowledge of Homer is easily credible.' (p.339)

F. F. Bruce calls it one of Acts 'unmistakable Homeric reminiscences.'

According to Susan M. Praeder, - Little else except a reminiscence of the Odyssey would explain the only appearance of EPIKELLEIN and NAUS in the New Testament.

So this amazing knowledge that Taunton touts as evidence comes from the Odyssey?

We may as well have people quoting Gulliver's Travels and Taunton claiming that they obviously knew all about sea-journeys :-)

Neil Godfrey find some more stuff, which is rather embarassing for Taunton's claim of the real-life nature of this writing of the author of Acts.

Odyssey

There are two shipwreck scenes in the Odyssey. In book 5 Odysseus suffers alone and in book 12 Odysseus loses his entire crew. MacDonald observes that other writers, Apollonius Rhodius and Virgil, composed shipwreck scenes that drew on both these Homeric accounts, and that Paul’s shipwreck scene similarly contains elements of both.

Prediction of disaster: Acts 27:9-10 - cf Od.12 (portents predict disaster) and Od.5 (Odysseus fears disaster)

Sail out in fine weather: Acts 27:13 - cf Od.12 and Od.5 (Odysseus set sail in good weather)

Storm soon follows: Acts 27:14 - cf Od.12 (Zeus soon sends a storm) and Od.5 (Poseidon later sends a storm)

Winds, waves and darkness: Acts 27:14, 18-20 -cf Od.12 (south, east, west, north winds) and Od.5 (south, west winds) and traditional Greek names for the winds used in both Acts and Odyssey.

Abandon all hope: Acts 27:20 - cf Od.5 (Odysseus abandons hope) The abandonment of all hope was a topos in ancient storm stories

Winds drive the helpless ship: Acts 27:15, 17 - cf Od. 12 and Od.5 (the word is FERW, 'to drive')

Expect to die: Acts 27:20 (except for Paul) - cf Od.5 (Odysseus expects to die at sea)

Fulfilled prophecy: Acts 27:21 - cf Od.5 (Calypso's prophecy came true)

Divine figures suddenly appear: Acts 27:23 - cf Od.5 (goddess Ino appears to Odysseus in the middle of the storm)

The divine figure tells the hero none will be lost but the ship: Acts 27:22 - cf Od.5 (the divinity tells Odysseus he will survive but his ship will not)

The divine figure assures the hero of his 'fate': Acts 27:24 - cf Od.5 (it is the fate of Odysseus to escape as it is the fate of Paul to stand before Caesar)

Why believe a divinity?: Acts 27:30 - cf Od.5 (Odysseus did not trust the message of the goddess any more than the crew on Pauls ship trusted the word of the angel - both continued to attempt managing on their own.)

Everyman for himself: Acts 27:43-44 - cf Od.12 and Od.5 (Odysseus rides a plank, in Acts some swim and others ride planks)

An island to the rescue: Acts 28:1 - cf Od.12 and Od.5 (Odysseus arrives on an island)

Friendly locals: Acts 28:2 - cf Od.12 (Calypso shows generosity) and Od.5 (locals show generosity)

Hero experiences cold and warmth: Acts 28:2-3 - cf Od.5 (Odysseus gathered leaves when cold; Paul gathered firewood when cold)

Locals are most unimpressed by the hero: Acts 28:4 - cf Od.5 (locals recoil in fear at Odysseus’s appearance, just as they rejected Paul as a murderer doomed to divine punishment)

Locals subsequently see the hero as a god: Acts 28:6 - cf Od.5 (locals believe Odysseus must be a god because of his appearance, just as they later believed Paul was a god for surviving the snake bite)

Wild beasts: Acts 28:3 - cf Od.5 (Odysseus feared wild beasts; Paul was bitten by one)

The hero is highly honoured: Acts 28:9-10 - cf Od.5 (Phaeacians entertain and honour Odysseus with many gifts for his stories as Maltese entertained and honoured Paul for his many healings)

Locals provide the necessaries and a new ship: Acts 28:10 - cf Od.5 (Alcinous provided Odysseus with a ship to continue his journey)

Smooth sailing from then on: Acts 28:11-14 - cf Od.5/13 (The renowned Phaeacian sailors drove Odysseus ship to his destination with astonishing speed; Pauls ship led by the Dioscuri (the twin gods Castor and Pollux, protectors of ships and sailors) and with help of a NOTOS (south wind) arrived quickly at Puteoli.)

-----------------------------------------

Pretty devastating stuff.

The only excuse for Taunton is that his apologetic books never tell him about this stuff.

It must be a shock when he then talks to sceptics who simply blow his arguments away.

His apologetic books leave him high and dry when talking to sceptics.

I feel sorry for him.

112. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76681 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Perhaps Mark would accept Christian sources about the island status of the city of Tyre , and how it had daughter settlements on the coast.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/ii.xxii.htm

TAUNTON
...the context is characterising Tyre as a grand and mighty armed trading ship....

CARR
What? A grand and mighty armed trading ship that is on land, and not in the sea, like an island would be?

113. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76675 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:20 pm

MARK THE BIBLE-DENIER TAUNTON
There is a regular way in Hebrew to say "surrounded by", but it does not come in Ezekiel 27:32.

CARR
The Hebrew word used for 'midst' is 'tevek'.

Mark the Bible-denier Taunton claims this is not a regular way to say 'surrounded by'...

Let us see where else 'tevek' is used, and if it means 'surrounded by'.

Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Hey, he wasn't totally surrounded by the tent, was he?

Exd 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.

Was the flame totally in the bush?

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

I guess Adam and Eve were partly in the garden and partly out.


Exd 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud.

Moses, of course, was partly in the cloud and partly out.

There are others, way too numerous to mention.

Still, Mark Taunton tells us that when Ezekiel said Tyre was on a throne surrounded by seas, or was in the midst of the sea, he meant that Tyre was not in the sea at all, but was a mainland city.

And, of course, the mainland is also built up today, which Taunton dodges.

There is simply no reasoning with fundamentalists like Taunton, who will simply deny anything that they cannot face - including their own Bible, if needs be.

114. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76671 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Let us read Ezekiel one more time, so that Mark the Bible-denier Taunton can deny it one more time.


Ezekiel 28:2 'In the pride of your heart you say, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas."

Yes, Ezekiel says one more time that Tyre is *in* the seas, and Taunton will twist scripture one more time to tell us that Ezekiel meant that Tyre was *beside* the sea, not in it.

But that is fundamentalism for you.

Fundies do not take the Bible as literally true.

As what it does say is obviously false, they have to twist the Bible like a pretzel to get it to say the opposite of what it does say.

115. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76665 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Let us read Ezekiel ONE MORE TIME, so the Bible-denier can deny it one more time.

Fundamentalists literally cannot read. All they can do is twist words, and insult our intelligence by their sophistry.

Ezekiel 27:32 'As they wail and mourn over you,
they will take up a lament concerning you:
"Who was ever silenced like Tyre,
surrounded by the sea?"

Ezekiel says Tyre was surrounded by the sea, yet Mark the Bible-denier Taunton claims Ezekiel though of Tyre as on the mainland, and that the island part was not silenced until Alexander (who is never mentioned by Ezekiel, of course).

I look forward to Mark Taunton telling us that 'surrounded by the sea' does not mean 'surrounded by the sea'.

He will convince nobody of anything except that he is blind and obstinate.

Of course, the mainland part by the island (as well as the island part itself) has been rebuilt many times.

Ezekiel's prophecy is totally busted.

116. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76650 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 3:27 pm

TAUNTON
You have not shown why Tyre must be identified as the island, whereas I have given multiple reasons why it was in fact on the mainland.

CARR
'Out in the sea'....

'A bare rock...'

I guess the Bible-denier has his work cut out here.

Perhaps the mainland of Lebanon is now just a bare rock.

Of course, both the island part and the mainland parts have been rebuilt.

There is even an Archbishop of Tyre, who I imagine tells people that Tyre has never been rebuilt, just like the prophecy stated.

117. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76647 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Perhaps Mark might want to read a bit more of Ezekiel's prophecy...

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Tyre: Will not the coastlands tremble at the sound of your fall....'

Gosh! Mark says that Tyre was on the coastlands, and Ezekiel seems to think that the coastlands will hear the sound of Tyre's fall - almost as though Tyre was the island....

That is the trouble with fundamentalists though.

They simply cannot read what the Bible says....

118. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76645 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 3:09 pm

TAUNTON
The place I propose as the site of Palaetyros certainly looks pretty bleak, and is bereft of people, even today.

CARR
Let us go through Ezekiel's prophecy ONE MORE TIME.

So the Bible-denier can deny it one more time.

Ezekiel 26

I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets...

Apparently this 'nature reserve' is a bare rock , where people spread fishnets.

At least according to Taunton, who appears to be an amateur at the art of denying what the Bible clearly says, while still claiming that it is all true....

Hey, but if some fundie claims that 'out in the sea' means a nature reserve , which is not in the sea, what can we do except give him more rope to tie himself up in knots with?

119. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76641 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Let us go through Ezekiel's prophecy one more time.

'You quoted the same original text in two different translations. The relevant original words are most directly rendered as "daughters in the field"'

Daughters in the field....

The original was not in the field.

What was in the field were the 'daughters'

What was on the island was what the daughters belonged to.

Is this so hard to grasp?

'Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets...'

Notice the 'out in the sea'.

What we have here, is another Bible-denier, who simply denies what the Bible says.

Of course, both the settlement on the former island and the settlements on the mainland have been rebuilt, so smashing Ezekiel's prophecy of the place being 'a bare rock'.

Thank you for playing.

Could we have the next religion please?

120. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76574 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 10:34 am

The main part of Tyre was the island part.

There are now buildings on what was the island part and what was the mainland part.

The coastline has changed over 2,500 years but that is basically the case.

Ezekiel claimed that both the island part and the 'daughter' part on the mainland would be conquered by Nebuchadnezzar

'It shall become plunder for the nations, and its daughter-towns in the country shall be killed by the sword.'

But Nebuchadnezzar never conquered the island part.

'Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword.'

What was on the mainland were 'her settlements', according to Ezekiel, not the island itself, which was 'out in the sea'.

But Googe Maps shows the dense building on the site of the former island.


The mainland part was , apparently , called Ushu.

But I would have to check that.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1999/2/992tyre.html

121. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76528 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 5:08 am

MARK TAUNTON
'When they turned away to other so-called gods,...'

CARR
Mark is himself living proof that all these stories are ridiculous rubbish.

Despite not seeing one thousandth of the evidence of these people, he would never turn to another so-called god, yet he claims that the events in Exodus were true, and religious people saw all these things and still turned to other gods.

Mark's faith is living proof that that would not happen.

Farrell Till has an excellent mocking column on the sheer stupidity of what Mark Taunton is trying to sell us :-

http://www.skepticfiles.org/sr/4like93.htm

It is just so funny.

'Surely, in the entire history of mankind, no one had ever witnessed a miracle as amazing as the one that those Israelites witnessed on that day.
One would think that after seeing the power of Yahweh wielded so decisively on their behalf, the people would have been loyal to him till
death, but, if we are to believe the Bible, it didn't happen that way.


The last ripples in the sea had hardly settled when the people began to bellyache again. They sang a hymn of praise to Yahweh and turned inland
to march across the Sinai, but they had traveled only three days from the Red Sea when they began to complain because there was no water to drink
(15:22).

So we must again ask ourselves, "How likely is this?" Must we believe that the people who had witnessed the parting of the Red Sea could so soon forget the power and majesty of their god Yahweh that they would complain about a shortage of water? Which of them could have possibly been so utterly dense of intellect that they would not have known that supplying drinking water would have been next to nothing for a god who could forge a path through the Red Sea?'

122. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76526 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:57 am

MARK TAUNTON
Old Tyre is no longer a city in the slighest meaningful sense, whatever the map says

CARR
Is this a joke?

Here is what the prophecy says :-

Ezekiel 26 'I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt....'

There are buildings right where Old Tyre used to be.

Bare rock? The place is a bare rock?

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/910/919/sour/pictures/index3.html

Look at all those buildings - right where the old island used to be.

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/910/919/sour/pictures/index.html

Yes, there are also ruins in Tyre.

But there are also ruins in Rome. Does this mean Rome does not exist?

Amazingly, you can show pictures of buildings in Tyre to Christians and they will look at the pictures and say that the prophecy came true that it was a bare rock and was never rebuilt.

Christianity - not believing the evidence of your own eyes since 33 AD

123. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76525 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:44 am

MARK TAUNTON
Next, you mention Deuteronomy 28, without being more specific.

CARR
Well, let me be more specific.

Verse 63 :-
Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you.

It seems your alleged god takes pleasure in ruining and destroying people who disobey his alleged commands.

Good thing that you have no evidence that he exists.

124. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76496 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 2:09 am

Anybody interested in seeing what Bill Hamilton really said, rather than Wee Flea's wicked lies ,
can look at page 456 of Narrow Roads of Gene Land Vol. 2 (which Wee Flea calls an 'autobiography' with his usual carefree attitude to the truth)

Hamilton was claiming that modern medicine was wrong to tinker with human embyros, and that we might end up with a generation of people dependent upon medicine to stay alive.

125. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76486 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:36 am

DEVOLVED
You will rationally do terrible things because of your beliefs religious or not.


CARR
Yes, but Christians will claim that their Holy Book means that people can be killed , man, woman and child because they are 'termites'

Wee Flea says atheists have a hatred of religion.

Christians defend genocide!

That is not going to happen on my watch.

Read http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/10/termites-and-caananites.html

I quote the authors contempt for atheists who think genocide is , on the whole, a bad thing.

'While they accuse Christians of being the ones who are unable to see nuances in positions, a total disregard of the reasoning that the destruction of entire groupings of people may be morally acceptable when taking all factors into account shows a lack of careful thought that it is appalling.'

Wee Flea would be proud of that. Atheists against genocide? How 'appalling'! What a 'lack of careful thought'!

126. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76484 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:32 am

I see Wee Flea posts tons of stuff and still produces no evidence for his beliefs, which include the belief that the creator of the universe was carried around in a box in a desert by a tribe of refugees....

127. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76482 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:30 am

LENNOX
Stalin did bad things.

Therefore there is a God.

CARR
Naturally, I paraphrase, but he would have to work on that logic a bit.

Atheist logic is much clearer.

BELIEVER - The lives of Christians have been transformed by the Holy Spirit.

SCEPTIC - You have actually put forward a testable hypothesis. I test it and see that Christians are no better or worse than other people.

128. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76481 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:28 am

WEE FLEA
Personally I thought the format was awful -

CARR
SO that is why Wee Flea is going to use this debate and not the interview with McGrath.

Flea admits himself that it was an awful format.

Hence its suitability for his propaganda purposes!

129. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76284 by stevencarrwork on October 5, 2007 at 10:53 am

DASJOEN
For instance, I don't think Dr. Lennox's definition of faith came across clearly. As I understand it, he would define faith as "trusting someone/something, based on evidence". You have faith in the airline pilot when entering the plane, because evidence tells you that airline pilots usually are to be trusted.

CARR
OK , give me the evidence for each of these things that Lennox has faith in, evidence similar to Dawkins evidence that his wife loves him :-

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.


I would love to see Lennox evidence for everlasting life. Perhaps he has an infinity machine to test for everlasting life?

130. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75994 by stevencarrwork on October 4, 2007 at 8:53 am

Lennox uses Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot because he knows that atheists do not defend genocide.

Christians though claim that genocide is perfectly acceptable, because some people are 'termites'

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/10/termites-and-caananites.html

'While they accuse Christians of being the ones who are unable to see nuances in positions, a total disregard of the reasoning that the destruction of entire groupings of people may be morally acceptable when taking all factors into account shows a lack of careful thought that is appalling.'

131. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75738 by stevencarrwork on October 3, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Here is a question from the University of Durham's 2007 Theology exam.

13. 'The God Delusion should have a place in every school library - especially in the
library of every 'faith' school' (Philip Pullman). What can the Christian church learn
from Richard Dawkins?

How can Dawkins be accused of not studying theology, when it is HIS book that theology students are asked questions about?

Perhaps we could have a go at answering this degree level theology question...

132. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75144 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 11:16 pm

If chemistry departments can be closed, why should theology deparmtents be sacred?

133. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75138 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Many German universities have both a Catholic Theology department and a Protestant theolkogy department.

Not that there is anything arbitrary and pick and mix about theology, of course...

134. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75052 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 1:11 pm

JANUS
They mean he should know more about the latest and most sophisticated "theories" of theologians about what God is like.

CARR
They are really upset with Dawkins for reading the Bible and not the spin doctors.

According to many Protestants, the message of the Bible is clear and it is all you need to read to understand Christian doctrines and beliefs.

So why is it a crime for atheists to just read the Bible and then say that they know what Christianity is?

135. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74980 by stevencarrwork on October 1, 2007 at 9:20 am

Anybody interested in the utter rubbish turned out in theology departments could do worse than look at this article on the conflict between religion and evolution from Harvard University

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/35-23_coakley.html

136. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74785 by stevencarrwork on September 30, 2007 at 12:27 pm

WEE FLEA
I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right.

CARR
There was a time when the Bible said polygamy was morally right.

I guess if you don't like Biblical morality, just wait and it will change.


I'm sure Wee Flea does lots of things atheists would say were deeply immoral, because atheists don't realise that the Bible say that those things are actually moral.

I'm sure that is true, unless Wee Flea wants to claim that Biblical morality and atheistic morality are the same.

137. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74696 by stevencarrwork on September 30, 2007 at 2:24 am

WEE FLEA
Human beings are polluted.

WEE FLEA
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died.

CARR
SO you have to tell someone that a 'polluted' thing has just died?

You'll get over it.

After all that baby was polluted.

138. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74671 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:49 pm

WEE FLEA
I simply pointed out that on this website some think it is some kind of brilliant point that because they cannot prove they don't have an elephant in their fridge, this is somehow proving that there is no God.

CARR
More lies by the liar for Jesus.

Who argues that a proof that there is no God is that they don't have an elephant in their fridge?

139. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74670 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:47 pm

WEE FLEA
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died.

CARR
Gosh, nothing fails like prayer.

I bet the child's Heavenly Father did nothing while the earthly parents were frantically doing everything they could.

140. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74532 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:06 am

WEE FLEA
Lev.15:19- 24. teaches about ceremonial uncleaness - as does the pasage abut men with an emission of semen. The ceremonial laws no longer apply, the temple having been done away with, and the ceremonial law replaced by Christ.

JESUS
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

CARR
When did heaven and earth disappear?

Where does the New Testament claim that there was such a thing as the 'ceremonial' law? Which chapter and verse?

'Ceremonial' law is an invention of Christians who realise that their god was being stupid when he told people to cleanse themselves by shaking the blood of dead birds over themselves

Of course, Wee Flea claims that Leviticus 14 were divine laws given to mankind by a god, when any idiot can see that they are superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

141. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74511 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 7:49 am

WEE FLEA
If you seriously cannot prove that there is not an invisible elephant in your fridge then yes, there is no way I could ever offer you proof that there is a God.

CARR
I cannot prove it to a person who believes in invisible elephants the way theists believe that if you knock their head off their shoulders with a sledgehammer, a part of them will still be capable of conscious thought.

142. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74506 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 7:38 am

Brother John is quite right.

We atheists have come to set Christian against Christian, so that families will be at war with each other.

It's what Jesus would have wanted.

143. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74504 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 7:33 am

BROTHER JOHN
...hater of hypocrisy (the talk about whited sepulchres, his reaction to the prostitute at the meal with his self-righteous acquaintances)

CARR
Yes.

Jesus came down from Heaven to spread the message that he wanted water to wash his feet with and to express his disgust with people who offered him water to wash his hands with.

If people did not give him water to wash his feet with , he was livid. (Luke 7)

Of course, Jesus could not care less about whether other people had been given water to wash their feet with.

And if people offered him water to wash his hands with, he was absolutely furious. (Luke 11:37)

The hypocrisy of these people! Offering him water to wash his hands with, and not offering him water to wash his feet with!

If I were Jesus, I would have stormed back to Heaven in a huff if I had been treated like that.

Has anybody ever been treated as badly as that?

What else was the message of the greatest teacher who ever lived (apart from the teaching that he wanted water to wash his feet with, Goddammit!)?

Well, in Matthew 18:23-29, Jesus compares God with somebody who forgives others the greatest debt in the world and then hands them over to be tortured.

That's God for you. 'Forgive and have tortured'.

144. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73224 by stevencarrwork on September 24, 2007 at 1:55 pm

' The classical doctrine within Christian theology [...] is ultimately the dependence of everything that exists, including evolutionary processes, on some transcendent power (God).'

I had always wondered what hate, anger, murder, jealousy and suffering depended upon.

Now I know.

145. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72661 by stevencarrwork on September 22, 2007 at 5:48 am

SHAUN
'I would say he is more like the surveyor who finds out their (religionists) house has no foundations and is slowly sinking into the mire.'

CARR
Jesus said people should build houses on rocks, not on sand.

God, that guy was a genius.

Never in 2,000 years has anybody come up with more profound words of wisdom than that simple carpenter from Nazareth, who revolutionised the world with his teachings that houses on beaches are not as stable as houses on solid ground.

As for his 'salted with fire' teaching, I literally could not get through the day without remembering those inspiring words about me being salted with fire.

Or is it fired with salt?

Anyway, whichever it was, you can see why theists lambast people like Dawkins for not being as intellectually sophisticated as Jesus.

Little wonder that Jesus said that the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave to condemn people like him.

You can scoff, but Jesus wasn't one of these random lunatics you see in the street preaching hell fire for unbelievers.

Whe he said the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave to condemn people, you had better keep an eye on that decayed corpse!

The trouble with Dawkins is that he does not realise how sophisticated Christianity is with its tales of talking donkeys (see 2 Peter), and people finding coins in the mouths of fishes.

146. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72660 by stevencarrwork on September 22, 2007 at 5:37 am

'2. When theologians say that God made the universe what they mean (and this would be obvious to anybody who actually reads a little theology) is that the best explanation for the existence of the universe requires the existence of God.'

It's magic.

Magic explains everything.

How does Paul Daniels saw a woman in half and then put her back together again?

Magic.

It's the best explanation.

Heaven forbid (literally) that we should try to find out what really happened.

147. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72383 by stevencarrwork on September 20, 2007 at 11:14 pm

All those reviewers who say that Dawkins might have read the Bible, but what he should do is read sophisticated theokogians....

Aren't they just claiming that the Bible is crap?

Why is God so bad at getting his message across that people can read the Bible and still be criticsed for reading the Word of God instead of the Word of Swinburne or the Word of Plantinga?

Surely all those reviews of Dawkins are admissions that God is a second-rate theologian, not worthy to be compared with McGrath, who, let's face it, is much more sophisticated than God.

148. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71581 by stevencarrwork on September 19, 2007 at 4:39 am

'Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ'

More lies.

Not one actual word of a quote is given. We do not know what Thallus wrote, and there is no evidence that Thallus actually did link any darkness to any crucifixion of Christ.

149. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71579 by stevencarrwork on September 19, 2007 at 4:36 am

'Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.'

Sheer bare-faced lies.

There is no mention of Jesus and no mention of when this king was supposed to have lived.

Christianity - a religion built and run on lies and propagated by liars who lie for Jesus.

150. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71577 by stevencarrwork on September 19, 2007 at 4:34 am

'Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).'

Apart from the bizarre and wrong reference given, Suetonius also puts this Chrestus as living in Rome in about 44 AD.