1551. 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.

1552. 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"

1553. 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?

1554. 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

1555. 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

1556. 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

1557. 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

1558. 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.

1559. 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

1560. 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?

1561. 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)

1562. 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

1563. 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?

1564. 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?

1565. 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?

1566. 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

1567. 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

1568. 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?

1569. 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

1570. 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

1571. 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

1572. 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.

1573. 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

1574. 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.

1575. 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

1576. 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!

1577. 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?

1578. 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.

1579. 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

1580. 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.

1581. 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

1582. 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.

1583. 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?

1584. 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.

1585. 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:-(

1586. 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?

1587. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13911 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 3:37 am

David, still waiting for those verses on god existing outside space and time. Did you see the 2 headed lizard I posted earlier?
Has everyone seen the merry mithras link yet. You know David, the god that pre-dates jesus, was a saviour born of a virgin in a stable, who was killed and rose again, and whos followers commemmorated him by eating bread and drinking wine.
David, You claim there is a god out of ignorance. We say there is none through fact. We say yours definately doesnt exist because the bible is so useless at everything, and you ripped off mithras, dionysis, Horace, El, Enki etc

1588. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13910 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 3:25 am

Whoa, martin's on a roll,
David, how exactly did you defend that program? Is insulting atheists defense?
Actually, by ignoring me, you are proving jesus wrong (something about judges and persistance?) oh well, no suprise there. Carry on ignoring me and I WILL come on your site and I WILL make believers doubt, Your call (unless of course you want to ban me).
You do a good job of turning people away from faith here. I hope you have been measured up for your mill stone.
Mark 9:42 "Whoever will cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him if he was thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around his neck."
Keep up the good work

1589. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13901 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 2:37 am

David, in reference to your comment that the bible claims that death and disease are a result of mankinds sin, have you seen todays metro? It has a picture of a two headed (abnormal) reptile that predates man. Unfortunately the link does not show the fossil. It is in the paper version though, if you can get hold of it. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=30060&in_page_id=2
How do you reconcile this FACT with the mythology of the holey babble?

1590. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13900 by BillySands on December 20, 2006 at 2:32 am

Hi Mark, the bible does both support and deny the trinity, and I guess it boils down to which onw you want to believe. I would agree more with your point though, simply because the main trinitarian verse in the bible is a late addittion (which doesn't bode well for general reliability of it) my point was Isaiah says thee is only one god. The word elohiym is plural. There is a whole sumerian mythology behind this and I think the jews just happened to pick this one. Anyway, the prophecy is more important.
On a different note, there have been some discussions about how disease etc only came into the world after the man sinned. I pointed out that this is not so, because there is evidence of predation, pathology, volcanic disasters, unhatched eggs and fossil parasites. I found this interesting article today, of a two headed (abnormal) reptile that predates man. Unfortunately the link does not show the fossil. It is in the paper version though, if anyone can get hold of it. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=30060&in_page_id=2

1591. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13839 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:27 pm

just realised, david will say that what he actually said means something different in Dundonian. Good job I lived in St Andrews for a few years and can translate Dundonian accurately :-)

1592. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13837 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:15 pm

Brian, now that you have eplained how to do bold (not that I can DOH!) I now ralise that you are not god, but brian of the gaps :-)

Mark, I don't see hoe you can possibly link deut 28 to rome. You no doubt believe that was written before the alledged conquest of canan, I know the bible mentions many of these things happening elswhere, so, what has it got to do with rome? Also after the alledged taking of jericho, the israelites disobeyed god and were defeated at Ai, but god did none of these things to the people. He told them to stome Achans' family and helped them defeat Ai (josh 6-7). This seems a little inconsistant.
I also have to disagree with Isaiah 43:10-12. The bible actually mentions that there are other gods eg pslm 97:7 "oh worship him all ye gods" Psalm 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods." and "22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" to name a few. Also, the genesis narrative where god says let us? etc eg 1:26;11:7. The hebrew word here is actually plural (elohiym http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm).

1593. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13829 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 3:00 pm

Hi Fedler,

If you want a proper discussion with some theists, try this thread. http://richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg#13824
Shaun in particular seems a nice guy, although he is wrong :-). He will give you some answers, although I disagree with them.

1594. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13825 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 2:42 pm

Momo, I dont know what you know about the free church, but they certainly don't like freedom. They chain up swings on a sunday to prevent children playing on them, and want to ban ferries etc on a sunday too. I even know some folk who were kicked out of a B&B run by some "wee frees" for watching television on a sunday.

NJS where do they get their ideas from? I am not an atheist through Darwin. There are plenty of reasons to be an atheist. Darwin did however provide the framework to understand all life, from biodiversity to behaviour and morality. It makes sese of atheism, but is not the foundation of it- Muppets!

1595. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13823 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 2:23 pm

Too true Martin. I certainly wont ban him. he would probably like that anyway. I'm half tempted to go on his site and see how long it is till they ban me (and I will be polite)
Merry mithras dude

1596. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13821 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 2:20 pm

Hi Shaun,
A couple of problems here. The first is more speculative, and that is that verse 10 sounds very much like the babylonian exile, and this is backed up by verse 8 makes it clear there is no royal line (That would be hard to restore since god cursed the royal line with jehoaikim (Jer 36:30 as mentioned earlier, contradicted in 2 kings 24:6)
The second and the one I would put most weight on is that Micah 5:6 says "he will rescue us from the Assyrians" the only he can be the he of 5:2. It can't be jesus.
Other problems I have pointed out include the fact that Bethelehem may be a person, one who does not appear in either of jesus' genealogies.
I notice another problem too. You start micah 5 with now mobilise. This links it to chapter 4 as a continuous narrative. However not every translation does this (eg NIV and NLT). However, I still think the context of this verse rules out jesus as you kind of admit (at least I think you do). The Assyrians are fatal to your interpretation. If you think this part was fulfilled, then micah 5:6 talks of this person apointing people to rule Assyria, that never happened.

1597. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13811 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:56 pm

Fedler, taken from davids comment no 65 "Firstly I will prolong any discussion which consists primarily of abuse, anger and aggression."

I'm sure he is trolling, and that's not very nice.

1598. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #13806 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:47 pm

Hi Shaun,
I'm affraid that we dont recognise the bible as evidence, althoug I realise it is the source of your views, so that make discussion a bout morals dificult. One thing your answer does not address is disease. God could prevent that. How is that a consequence of free will? how is a woman in her 40s giving birth to a child with an extra 21st chromosome not preventable? It doesn't make sense. Take your time answering, you have a bit to get through.

Billy

1599. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13802 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:37 pm

david, what is your evidence that god exists outside space and time as you claim in your article? I can think of no bible verse that says that. I suspect that there isn't one and that there aren't any that strongly imply it.

1600. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #13798 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:31 pm

"Thing that gets me is that even if it could be proved beyond doubt that the universe came into being because of some space man designer entity, the religious still would not accept it because they want the answer to be THEIR GOD."

Excellent point paul. one thing that always gets me is that christians tell us their god wants us to believe in him. So where the hell is he? where is that evidence? where is the apparition or the booming voice from the sky or the birthday card? I never really thought about it before, but the logic of a child disproves god!