251. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #84169 by SRWB on November 1, 2007 at 10:58 am

So you really believe that the further we travel along the road leading away from these so-called primitive "pre-industrial" societies the more capable we are becoming of human decency! Socrates' dictum (later echoed and surpassed by Christ) "do not do onto others what you would not like them to do to you) was then rather out of place in the pre-industrial age in which he lived, was it not?

As a general rule, such a sentiment was out of place! Would you seriously argue that the prevailing conditions of life throughout most of the world, i.e., standard of living, were better in Socrates' time? The story of human evolution and history itself arguably make this an unlikely proposition. And it's not about "being more capable"; it's about the prevailing conditions during those times (some of which still exist in parts of the world today).

I am quite sure that many examples of what we would now admire as "decent" and generous and altruistic could be found (if we had the tools for accessing the evidence) among the "hunters and gatherers" that you so glibly write off as "primitive".

and

Your statement also suggests not only that early humans were incapable of "decency" but also that modern humans are uniquely capable of it.

I didn't say that there were no examples of decent, altruistic behaviour, among such peoples, nor did I say that "common human decency" didn't exist in pre-modern times. My point was that times were different, and that today we are rather fortunate that we can undoubtedly expend more time and energy in pursuing altruism and other forms of philanthropy. As evidence from my "more enlightened historiography", I cite trends of increased democracy, rule of law, human rights, secularism, etc, at least in the western world. Again this is a general statement and not one that is true in every instance (before you again put words in my mouth). Besides I didn't write anyone off as "primitive" as I never used the word, nor did I suggest that "early humans were incapable of "decency" but also that modern humans are uniquely capable of it". I personally don't see "primitive" as a "glibly" insulting term to use in describing those people that lived thousands of years ago. It merely sets up a comparative scale which is useful to those like us who can peck out wordy debates on computers in our warm and cozy homes or offices, instead of having to expend all our energy just trying to survive.

The 20th century will not go down in history as a century when human decency, on the whole, prevailed over barbarism.

While I don't dispute that the 20th C had its moments, you would still be hard pressed to not find many examples of "common human decency", altruism and doing unto others, just like in every other century before.

252. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #84126 by SRWB on November 1, 2007 at 8:30 am

But "common human decency" does not arise out of the materialistic, evolutionary, survival-driven process.

No? Are you sure? If we still lived in pre-industrial, pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer societies, would your concepts of decency, worth and usefulness not be different than they are now? If everything you do, every action you perform, is about you and your immediate kin surviving until tomorrow, is that not very different than the sort of decisions we typically face in this day and age? The reasons we have "common human decency" today is because we (that is most societies) can afford to take the time, and have the financial, infrastructure and social resources to put them into place. In short, most modern societies can focus on other issues beyond mere survival, and that allows concepts like "common human decency" to flourish.

253. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82996 by SRWB on October 28, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Diacanu,

'Twas only a rhetorical question, but I agree with you that a mind is terrible thing to waste!

254. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82977 by SRWB on October 28, 2007 at 12:09 pm

So let me restate my answer to Hitchens's challenge: "The ethical statement that no atheist can reasonably make is that we should - literally, truly, and without exception - selflessly love our enemies and act on it."

As I asked in #334, is "love your enemies" really an ethical statement? You never did answer. Enemies, by definition, hate us and seek to harm us. Is it really ethical to accept that kind of attitude from someone who has proclaimed him/herself your enemy and intends to harm you and your family? Not to put too fine a point on it, but what exactly is ethical about allowing someone, probably a complete stranger, to threaten and harm you and yours and only respond by saying "I love you" and acting on it? What does that mean? Should I give him a hug and a gift, maybe a freshly baked pie? More importantly, does it work?

255. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82971 by SRWB on October 28, 2007 at 11:48 am

DG

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

I meant consequences to the one who makes these actions

So did I, but I meant in this life, not in the hereafter sitting around God's throne!

atheism offers no logical path away from immoral behavior where such immoral behavior is to one's advantage.

How about these? Immoral behavior might gain someone temporary advantage in the short term, but in the long run they usually end up paying for it. Anyone (sometimes even their families) who behaves unethically will suffer loss of reputation, respect and dislike by those who know him/her, resulting in shame and embarassment. The need to be liked, respected and to belong are very strong human emotions, and the kind of behaviours you describe erodes respect and admiration for those who decide not to cooperate and participate in the societies humans have developed.

my examples are indeed pertinent in the case of modern civilizations. And if theism (or rather religion in general) is true, ethics is pertinent always and in all cases, because objective reality is such that our actions always have consequences.

I still don't understand your point about how studying and looking before crossing the street are pertinent to a debate about ethics and morality. They are just actions we perform to get ahead (survive) in a modern lifestyle. Dawkins's point about fearing punishment by God or else desiring reward by God in order to be good merely points out how this belief is simply negative reinforcement. His real point is to be good for goodness sake – that's all.

I never claimed any such connection at least as far as taxes is concerned. I only claimed that there is no logical path that would lead an atheist to pay their fair share if they can get away without paying it. If you or anybody here can see a logical reason for an atheist to do the right thing in this case I would very much like to know about it.

You didn't claim it in so many words, but the inference of your original question is that there is a connection between unethical behaviour and being an atheist. Epeeist already answered it and so did I in #508!

256. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82404 by SRWB on October 26, 2007 at 8:29 am

DG,

So, again, on what logical grounds would an atheist decide to pay their fair share in society even if they can get away with not paying it?

What possible connection do you see between those of us who are atheists and not paying our fair share in society? The two thoughts aren't in any way connected. I simply don't believe in God, but I pay taxes, etc. The society we have developed over millenia has established certain norms, standards and practices, and if we wish to participate in such societies, we need to contribute for our own and our families' sakes. But it's got fuck all to do with belief in supernatural entities!

257. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82367 by SRWB on October 26, 2007 at 7:06 am

…a maybe subconscious pull of atheism is the wish to believe that our actions do not necessarily have consequences, which is a basically infantile wish.

WTF? Of course our actions have consequences, just not the supernatural ones you ascribe to - now that's an "infantile wish"). Everything we do has an impact on other people, our communities and the world in general, and has nothing to do with atheism. Your comparison (post 479) between what you call the "ignoble morals gambit", i.e. belief out of fear and reward, and the examples of studying to get into university and looking both ways before crossing a street are hardly pertinent. The last two are issues that are relevant to living in modern civilizations and are very important to surviving and thriving where most of us live and work.

We are all made in the image of God, and therefore we all intuitively know that to do the right thing is deeply meaningful.

Conjecture again! We know intuitively that to do the "right thing" makes it easier to get along with our particular societal group, and that has nothing to do with being "made in the image of God". It's only "deeply meaningful" because human societies have, over thousands of years, evolved certain norms of behavior that have become the "right thing".

258. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81439 by SRWB on October 24, 2007 at 6:08 pm

...then surely it's not like God agreed with Jesus' torture and crucifixion – surely nobody in their right minds thinks that, do they?

Lauregon has beaten me to it. Apparently nobody in their right mind thinks that, but God and his Christian friends do! Are you now taking the untenable position that this key tenet of Christianity is no longer true or valid? Or did we once again misunderstand the whole of your objective reality?

259. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81123 by SRWB on October 24, 2007 at 7:20 am

DG

I think our wires are crossed. I am not talking about Abraham and Isaac, but I agree it's a bizarre and "morally repugnant" story. However, to my question "does your God condone torture of "children" for fun or any other reason, i.e. like saving the rest of mankind?" you answered "no". Are you sure? I was referring to the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus. Wasn't he a "child" who was tortured? And you do believe in him, do you not?

Why muddy the waters by bringing Harris into the debate again? Does he really say that "torturing not only suspected terrorists but even their family appears to be ethically justified." I will check and get back to you. I think that Harris is at least being honest about the issue of torture based on the fact that it is no less morally objectionable than dropping bombs and other tactics of modern warfare. The difference is that he is at least able to admit the dichotomy and speak about it intelligently.

260. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80932 by SRWB on October 23, 2007 at 3:00 pm

DG,

Can you imagine any state of affairs that would make you change your opinion into actually believing that torturing children for fun is right?

No, but it's also an irrelevant question, as most (all) of us will not agree that torturing children (or adults), for fun or otherwise, is OBJECTIVELY right, wrong or true. Many have already stated that they do not believe torture is right – so whether it is objectively true or false is immaterial to the discussion.

As a point of reference, humans have evolved to the point where we can discuss such concepts intelligently. That was not always the case, even with people who were believers in deities, such as the Phoenicians, Incas, Aztecs, etc, who all sacrificed children (indeed your God allowed the sacrifice of his only child after he was tortured). Now, while we can agree that being sacrificed to a god is not necessarily the same as torture, I would defy you to suggest that the individual, whose life is about to be extinguished, doesn't feel intense dread, and severe physical pain and mental suffering - the very definition of torture. Does your God condone torture of "children" for fun or any other reason, i.e. like saving the rest of mankind?

261. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80715 by SRWB on October 22, 2007 at 6:47 pm

DG

The ethical statement by a believer that couldn't have been made by an atheist is "Love your enemies".

Is "love your enemies" really an ethical statement? Enemies, by definition, seek to harm us. Why should anyone, theist or atheist, "love" them? Is it ethical to accept that kind of attitude from someone who has proclaimed him/herself your enemy? In my opinion, "love" is an overused, trite word for such a situation. If you're honest with yourself and all of us, you will also admit that you don't love all of us, let alone your enemies. You don't even know us. I'll be honest - I don't love you or any of the other posters here for I don't know them personally. I might respect them for their insights and thought-provoking comments, be befuddled by them, enjoy their comments, and shake my head at others, but I don't love them nor do I hate them.

262. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #80616 by SRWB on October 22, 2007 at 10:41 am

Brilliant. Once again Grayling has hit a target dead on. As a military member, I think he has made some excellent points. The problem is that it is usually considered good form for the leadership of the military, government, etc. to spout about God, an afterlife, etc. as long as we are talking about Christianity.

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

Comment #79119 by SRWB on October 16, 2007 at 7:59 am

Philip

You are bang on again – there is little real difference in their beliefs. What we have here is a clear case of cherry picking as usual. You see, the beauty of the whole God concept is that it is flexible and is fundamentally based on what any one particular believer believes it to be! What could be better or more convenient? So revcort likes his faith hot, and for him it's all about obedience and giving glory to God, while brother john likes it a little cooler and more friendly, i.e. a little less smiting and brimstone, and more "justice", kind of like Archbishop Rowan Williams. Who is right? I don't believe either is, but how to prove it? That is the problem. I do agree with brother john's one comment "THE WORLD DOES NOT WANT THE GOD YOU PAINT. The world does not NEED the God you describe". I would only add that the world doesn't need ANY God.

264. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78030 by SRWB on October 11, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Anyone please chime in and tell me where I've gone wrong?

But you haven't gone wrong - far from it. Your last post was an excellent summary of the whole issue. What more could any one of us add to that, except to husband our resources and wait for Mark's inevitable heaven-inspired counterattack? (If he does respond, will that make me a prophet?) Well done.

265. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77932 by SRWB on October 11, 2007 at 6:34 am

Mark,

As I said in comment 1636, all this talk of "forts" and "bucklers", horses and chariots, etc. was bravado, nothing more (I repeat my comment about "bucklers" - a "buckler" is not a siege apparatus - it is a shield, nothing more elaborate). This very particular use of a relatively irrelevant word itself is more indicative of bluster as opposed to prescient knowledge. And it is still beside the point to ask about how horses and chariots would participate in the siege and assault of a city regardless of whether it was on an island or on the mainland! I cannot stress this enough. Even the most rudimentary understanding of ancient tactics should be enough to convince you that horses and chariots would have been next to useless in attacking any city walls, let alone ones on an island! To do so would have been tactical folly and most assuredly it was not done, even by Nebuchadrezzar. As I have said, sieges were work for infantry, engineers and "artillery" (not in the modern sense of the word), not horsemen. This whole passage you quote (26:7-11) doesn't really add anything to your argument and it hardly mentions "many physical details of a siege" as you suggest. Anyone alive at the time would have been familiar with such sights, as it was commonplace in an age of violence.

266. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77705 by SRWB on October 10, 2007 at 8:35 am

please note that Wikipedia is not the last word on anything.

You think? I never said it was. But then you have just ignored all the corroboration provided by JCS, or do you no longer believe in the infallibility of what is contained in the good book?

The ancient source texts are what matter.

So which is it? Are the ancient texts correct on all "facts", or just the ones that support your arguments? What about Isaiah?

the weight of evidence from Ezekiel alone is that he was referring to Tyre as a mainland city.

What about the simple law of averages and the likelihood that an island a mere half mile (800 meters) off the coast was identified as a safe and useful location to establish a settlement as a refuge for a mainland community? It is well known that the Phoenicians were a sea faring people, who established colonies as far away as Carthage centuries before the events in dispute. Therefore, is it really likely that they didn't settle the island some half mile off shore well before that time? Numerous sources suggest exactly that. Furthermore, Ezekiel himself mentions or alludes to the existence of an island on at least four occasions, verses 26:5, 26:15, 26:17 and 26:18. Or was he referring to other isles in the vicinity?

267. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77574 by SRWB on October 9, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Mark,

Only the mainland city; Ezekiel makes no mention of a separate island as part of it.

and

I am not aware of any evidence that "island Tyre" existed as a city in Ezekiel's day.

Now I think you are obfuscating again! You did not address my comment "It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea". Where else could nets be spread in the midst of the sea except on an island? Ezekiel may not have made mention of an island being part of Tyre, but there is evidence that it was! This from Wikipedia:

"Tyre originally consisted of two distinct urban centers, one on an island and the other on the adjacent coast (approximately 30 stadia apart or 3.5 miles according to Strabo in his Geography xvi, 2), before Alexander the Great connected the island to the coast during his siege of the city. One was a heavily fortified island city amidst the sea (with defensive walls 150 feet high) and the latter, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city."

The city Alexander conquered, and destroyed half of, was the relatively new city of island Tyre that he built his causeway to reach.

That fact is not in contention! My point was that the so-called prophecy is not clear about which Tyre would be destroyed. If Ezekiel really was clairvoyant his prophecy would have been much more detailed, i.e. the mainland city of Tyre will be destroyed and 250 years later the island will be captured. Then there is the question of whether the Babylonians actually ever captured mainland Tyre despite your contention that Alexander built his causeway "by breaking down the ruins Nebuchadrezzar had left". From Wikipedia again:

"It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser V, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years, and by Nebuchadnezzar (586–573 BC) for thirteen years, without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians."

Ezekiel's prophecy was given against that original mainland city of Tyre, and came true precisely.

Conjecture! Ezekiel 26:19 said "When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee". I would like to hone in on "bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee" – that sounds much more like a flood or sudden deluge as opposed to the stones being laid in the planned and deliberate construction of a causeway. I think you are once again engaging in some wishful wordplay. Others might be tempted to call it BS!

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

Comment #77463 by SRWB on October 9, 2007 at 11:26 am

oxytocin (and revcort),

Never mind Zeus-ists! What about us atheists? From our perspective, none of these "holy books" have any eternal significance.

269. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77452 by SRWB on October 9, 2007 at 10:52 am

Mark,

Is it still your contention that the Tyre referred to in the "prophecy" was only that which you call Palaetyros, i.e., the mainland city, or is the island included? This is important because if the "prophecy" includes both, then your theory is without merit. Unfortunately your soothsayer source, Ezekiel, is not very precise either (funny that). All of Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, nor by Alexander 250 years later. According to Wikipedia, Alexander "destroyed half the city" (this is backed up by other sources). Clearly, some of it survived and lived on. Ergo, the "prophecy" that Tyre would be "desolate" and flooded by "great waters" was not fulfilled.

How was Nebuchadrezzar to raise siege apparatus ("fort" and "buckler") against an island?

I guess he would have needed a navy, or he could have built a mole like Alexander. Is there any evidence he did (or didn't)? By the way, a "buckler" is not a siege apparatus - it is a shield, nothing more elaborate. So the passage about making forts, casting mounts and lifting up bucklers, etc. is just bravado, exactly what you would expect from anyone engaged in hostilities and about to besiege a city. I will grant you that all of the king's horses and chariots would not have been much use in attacking a city, regardless of whether it was on an island or on the mainland. To do so would have been tactical folly and most assuredly it was not done. Sieges are work for infantry, engineers and "artillery" (not in the modern sense of the word), not horsemen. Again just more bravado.

Now Ezekiel also said (26:5) "It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea". That sounds like he was referring to an island to me. How else could that be interpreted?

270. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76608 by SRWB on October 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Mark,

History tells us (look it up) that Alexander the Great demolished Palaetyrus (ancient Tyre) in order to construct with its rubble the causeway from the mainland to the island. That is exactly what Ezekiel prophesied would happen to the city.

And once again, I would have to say that it is not "exactly what Ezekiel prophesied would happen to the city"! You are still taking liberties based on our current knowledge of Tyre's history. Ezekiel never mentioned Alexander, and your interpretation that the laying of stones, timbers and dust in the midst of the water somehow predicts a causeway is still a big stretch. Furthermore, the area is not desolate, uninhabited and covered by "great waters".

271. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74554 by SRWB on September 29, 2007 at 1:20 pm

I remember years ago when USA_Limey in his peculiar genius said:...

LOL - it only seems like "years ago" due to DG's indefatigable perseverance!

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

Comment #74128 by SRWB on September 27, 2007 at 10:45 am

revcort,

Northern Bright's words make sense to all of us atheists here. She has said it so very well. Except there's nothing wrong with a bit of sex and rock 'n'roll!

Set yourself a challenge - don't think about,or pray to, God for a whole day, and just go about your daily business and see if it makes any difference as to how the day turns out. Then gradually go for longer periods and see what happens. You might find you have more control than you give yourself credit for.

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

Comment #73839 by SRWB on September 26, 2007 at 10:08 am

Billy,

Probably, but I was more concerned with space limitations of your average household fridge :-)

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

Comment #73833 by SRWB on September 26, 2007 at 9:58 am

Billy,

It could be one of those miniature elephants like the ones that inhabited the island of Flores in Indonesia as a contemporary of the Homo floresiensis species....

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

Comment #73830 by SRWB on September 26, 2007 at 9:52 am

Wee Flea,

comment 41 - You contend that these particular laws no longer apply as they have been overtaken by events and new "rules". To borrow a thought from gr8hands on another thread, what do these changing rules say about your God's omniscience? I would think that any "laws" he gave would be valid forever, wouldn't they? Or does he issue memos clarifying new procedures and interpretations of existing rules periodically? Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing entity need to do that?

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

Comment #73568 by SRWB on September 25, 2007 at 10:10 am

Revcort,

So, I suggest you start your own religion because what you are proposing is not Christianity.

How do you think any other religion gets started, including your very own version of Christianity? Consider how every religion ever known to humans got started and then tell us why it was the right, or wrong, one. I would suggest that every religion started as a human idea, and all it took was a charismatic and reasonably educated individual to run with it and cultivate a gullible following. If that was not the case, why has history been bedevilled by so many of them?

Now, to the onlookers. Listen to this man who argues as you do and who is very good at it. But know this, what he is telling you is only half true- and it does not live up to the standard of God, and it does not represent the teachings of Christianity at any point in its history.

So this kind of proves my point from just above. Just one more interpretation looking for a loyal, faithful following.

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

Comment #72492 by SRWB on September 21, 2007 at 9:23 am

Post 540 -

I would readily confess to you that God is my Master. He is in charge of my life. But, since He has transformed my thinking by His grace, it is exactly what I want.

Is he really in charge of your life? I'm not trying to be facetious, but does he feed you, clothe you, pay your bills, decide everything you do? Or do you do these things and make decisions yourself? Is this "exactly what (you) want" because He has transformed your thinking, or is it what you want because you have transformed your thinking to fall in line with an approach that makes you comfortable and happy?

Post 545 -

Well, from my viewpoint, these are false religions, so the question is moot. However, theoretically, the answer should be that genuine faith can't result from force. I mean, seriously, just because a muslim holds a gun to your head and says, "Say that Allah is god!" would saying that truly indicate that you believe in Allah? Absolutely not. Faith can't be forced. Of course, in my view, these other religions are worshiping demons, masquerading as gods.

An interesting response. But you cannot arbitrarily decide that other religions are false, and that they worship demons etc. Those believers are at least as committed to their beliefs, or more so, than you are. That doesn't prove they are right or wrong. But this continuing theological debate and interpretation does at least call into question all such definitive beliefs.

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

Comment #71671 by SRWB on September 19, 2007 at 12:44 pm

revcort,

Or if you've taken the same approach as Dawkins and feel no need to even understand it before you reject it?

I don't think that's an accurate statement. There's a very big difference between not understanding something and rejecting it because there's no evidence. That is what Dawkins and the rest of us do, and that is the gist of our exchange with you (and others like Bizarro).

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

Comment #71280 by SRWB on September 18, 2007 at 9:25 am

revcort,

Short response: enema - matchbox

Longer response: What a load of drivel. Do you believe everything you read? If you don't, why do you treat the Bible any differently when you then admit things like the following?

because the interpretations have become more and more corrupted.

How do you know that you have interpreted correctly?

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, 2 and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. 3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. 4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. 5 "But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 7:1-6

Sounds to me like the autobiographical excuses to justify the murderous ambitions of a self-elected people bent on conquest, slaughter and seizing land, not on spreading love, grace and goodness! Please explain to me why God would need his people to "defeat" and "utterly destroy" them. Why didn't he just smite them and "tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars…", himself?

280. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69027 by SRWB on September 9, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Mark,

Thank you for pointing out the error of my comments in regards to the Christadelphians and my assumption that they also believe in a Trinitarian god – you learn something everyday! Nevertheless, while you may not believe in the trinity, many Christians do. I am also aware that such an approach is just argumentum ad numerum, and is thus no more likely to be true than your own specific beliefs. After all, why would your interpretation be correct, when the Pope feels just as strongly that his is the right approach (not to mention that of countless rabbis and imams, etc)?

I'm not sure that you are on firm ground in attacking RD's "unscientific" approach to characterizing Christian denominations as all the same or all as bunk. You suggest that Dawkins doesn't give religious belief enough attention and weight. I think his intent was (is) to point out the flaws and inconsistencies in any and all religious beliefs, regardless of denomination, Christian or otherwise. By it's very nature religion is unscientific, so should not be entitled to be treated in accordance with such precise methodologies. To pretend that (any) theology is worthy of reverence and respect, just out of faith, and without any evidence, is anathema to any accepted scientific practices. By way of analogy, it is not much different than submitting The Lord of the Rings trilogy to scientific scrutiny. What would be the point?

In regard to God's visits to the denizens of the OT, I used the term "regular" as a relative term compared to the dearth of visits in the last few thousand years. But I wish to pick you up on your comment with regard to God's supposed conversations with Adam and Eve. What proof can you provide? After all, Genesis is not written in the first person, so who recorded these conversations for posterity? The way I see it, we have a huge evidence gap here. You see, the Bible is a retrospective account of one religion's history, and it has been added to, amended, translated, much like a game of Chinese whispers. How can you honestly vouch for its accuracy and inerrancy?

281. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68560 by SRWB on September 7, 2007 at 3:36 pm

There is only one known version of the prophecy, as originally written in Hebrew. So far as can be ascertained, this has been passed down intact from when Ezekiel first spoke the words

We are in agreement to a point – IF this "prophecy" was indeed made (in Hebrew) then that would be the definitive version. But can we be sure that it was passed down intact? How can we even be sure that it was copied down correctly? Unfortunately, there is no way of proving it either way.

However, the "prophecy" is also very much about interpretation of one word – "lay". You suggest it unerringly refers to the construction of a causeway; I have difficulty buying that argument, given the complete lack of supporting detail and evidence.

However, note that it was not me who suggested a "lack of conventions and rules of scholarship" in regard to the Bible as a document.

You're correct – those are my words, but I was simply construing your last comments of post 1540, "What would be necessary to give it any force, however, is to show that in all relevant Biblical contexts describing a series of (related) events, the mention of those events in the text is always in strict chronological sequence. And I believe you would fail to do that, as I can think of a number of counterexamples…". I interpreted this as a "lack of conventions and rules of scholarship". Perhaps that is not what you meant.

I am not at all sure of the validity of "didn't fall to this attack"!

To echo JC, did Tyre fall to Nebuchadnezzar or not? If it did fall, was it as a result of the causeway which wouldn't be built for another 250 years or so?

282. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68511 by SRWB on September 7, 2007 at 11:18 am

The PC party is alive and well, at the provincial level across Canada. The federal PC party disappeared into what is now the Conservative party (at that level).

This latest stunt is the sort of nonsense that pisses me off. While Tory has opened a can of worms, the current premier, McGuinty, a devout Catholic, has only selfish reasons for maintaining the status quo. The only sensible solution is to get rid of all separate school funding and put all education under one umbrella. Any sect wishing "religious" education should pay out of pocket, preferably not mine!

283. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68462 by SRWB on September 7, 2007 at 8:05 am

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God,...

The quote above is another of those fascinating ideas that Christians would have us accept as true. In effect, we are expected to believe that some 2000 years ago God, as his own son, lived and walked among us for 30 odd years. He also made regular appearances to other assorted characters throughout the preceding centuries in various guises, like burning bushes, etc. The strange thing is that since then, he has not made a lengthy visit or even just a pop in for coffee to us "post Biblical types" (nicely put newatheist!).

Why not? Are we not as worthy as the erstwhile denizens of the middle east?

284. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68300 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Billy,

Thanks much for the response concerning PMs. There is still so much to learn!

Cheers
Steve

285. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68275 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Mark,

One more time! You are absolutely correct that for a prophecy to be worth anything it must be clear and unambiguous; as you said "… the meaning of words and phrases is exactly what it comes down to". But therein lays part of the problem. A very cursory search of a half-dozen different Bibles has turned up three other words in the verse under contention (26:12); these are "put", "throw" and "cast". So we are far from unanimously settled upon "lay" as the operative verb. I would grant that "put" is similar to "lay", but then you would be forced to agree that "throw" and "cast" are more in line with what I have suggested. The point is that there have been too many versions of this story written, and passed down, that it is of little use as irrefutable evidence.

You make an interesting point about the ordering of events in chronological sequence, and how this is not always the manner in which Biblical writings are formatted. Doesn't this admitted lack of conventions and rules of scholarship by the ancients weaken your overall argument of factuality and unambiguous use of terms and words somewhat?

Again, I will not concede that this verse comes anywhere near to the fulfillment of a prediction. Tyre didn't fall to this attack and it was only some 250+ years later that a successful assault was carried out. So I am not disputing Alexander's attack, just your interpretation of it as having been prophesized by Ezekiel.

286. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68229 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 12:32 pm

A question from the colonies - what is a PM? Other than the obvious? I assume it has something to do with the post.

287. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68027 by SRWB on September 5, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Mark,

OK, my comment about "semantics" may have been a tad harsh and not entirely accurate. As you say this IS about use of language. Nevertheless, I contend that this debate really revolves around the likelihood of Ezekiel's prophecy being true or not. The evidence that has been presented by those counter to your viewpoint has been overwhelming, in my opinion. That is why, for me, it's not about whether anything was "laid" in the "midst of the waters" and other technicalities of ancient languages; it's about hard and convincing historical evidence for the events that supposedly took place. Any "inspired prophecy" worth a shekel should have been able to come up with a name or dates, and not simply relied upon riddles and commonly issued threats.
For example, if verse 26:12 was in reversed order, i.e, if the stones, timber and dust were laid in the water BEFORE all the riches were spoiled, merchandise was preyed upon, and walls broken down and pleasant houses destroyed, I would be more open to your interpretation.

288. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67930 by SRWB on September 5, 2007 at 7:46 am

Mark,

Thanks for your very quick response.

I guess we will agree to disagree. You still maintain that Ezekiel's prediction is "very much exceptional" and "quite specific". I'm sorry, I just don't see it.
So to address the specific points again:

The laying, putting, placing, dumping, etc. is semantics, nothing more. You asked if there was a precedent. While technically not preceding the events surrounding the sieges of Tyre, let's look at the example of Carthage after the Third Punic War (149-146 BC). Carthage (another coast city) was completely destroyed and never built on again. To quote the entry from Wikipedia,
"The city was systematically burned for somewhere between 10 and 17 days. Then the city walls, its buildings and its harbour were utterly destroyed and, according to an unsubstantiated 20th-century historiographical tradition, the surrounding territory was supposedly sown with salt to ensure that nothing would grow there again."
So there is evidence that such practice was certainly not unheard of in the ancient world.

I remain unconvinced that the "midst of the water" is as definite and precise as you suggest, as it is a very vague term that could mean a few feet off shore or in the middle of the Mediterranean! I think you are translating this too literally as the author would have used exactly such lyrical language in telling this story. It is very unlikely that he would have written something as stilted as "they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the water but just a few feet off shore". It's poetic licence, nothing more.

You also suggested that the abrupt change in grammar suggests a new attacker. That might be the case, but is it also possible that is just simply bad editing, or a new author taking up the "pen" between verses? Again there is not a shred of proof such as a very clear time line, i.e., 250 years later, identification of a new attacker's name, Alexander, etc.

289. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67773 by SRWB on September 4, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Mark,

...Richard Dawkins appears to be (as he certainly does all too often in TGD) inventing an imaginary version of God that fits his purpose, in order to prove that such a God does not exist. In other words, a straw man...

This is an interesting turn of phrase. But as an atheist, I ask whether all gods aren't invented, and don't all "imaginary version(s)of God ... fit (someone's) purpose"?

Let me rephrase the question - What exactly does the unimagined, i.e., real version of God do, look like, smell like, sound like, etc.? If it's anything like the imaginary version, it's a whole lot of nothing! More importantly, what is his real purpose?

On the subject of Tyre - you can not rely on one verse in the Bible as the authoritative source for the siege(s) of Tyre. If Ezekiel 26-12 stated something like "the city will be attacked and damaged by the Babylonians and some 250 years later it will be captured by Macedonians (I would even accept Greeks)", I would grant you your point (even if it's apparent that history can only be written after the fact). But this "prophecy" is remarkably non-descript and unexceptional for the following reasons (repeated from my post 1182) and can be interpreted any number of ways:

a. If Tyre was razed it should be apparent that there would be much "timber, stone and rubble". It's also possible that much of it would be laid (dumped) in the "the midst of the water".

b. "Midst of the water" tells us nothing – how far out from land is the midst? Tyre was a coastal city, thus it is to be expected that detritus from the city's sack would end up in the sea.

c. How does this in any way suggest another attack, over a causeway, some 250 plus years later? To "lay" does not necessarily imply to build. Even if it did, it doesn't mean anything because the crucial timeline is not included in this so-called prophecy. Why would this not refer to Nebuchadrezzar's attack?

d. What else would the ancients have built a causeway of, other than stones and timber? That's hardly prophetic, seeing they didn't have steel girders, cement and the like.

290. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #66075 by SRWB on August 28, 2007 at 10:50 am

OK, cigarettes aside (only because they hadn't been invented), what did Jesus drink at the last supper? Oh yeah - wine!

For my money, beer is better!

291. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64051 by SRWB on August 17, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I think what is pissing me off here is the way it glaringly betrays once again the sheer arrogant arse-brained presumptuous fuckwittery of fundamental Christians.

J, no need to apologize, but tell us how you really feel about this! :-)

How can people so completely fail to understand what evidence means? How can they so utterly misunderstand simple arguments?

It's not that they don't understand. The problem is this little issue called "faith" with which most were brainwashed since they were infants.

292. The Out Campaign

Comment #62296 by SRWB on August 9, 2007 at 7:59 am

Philip,

I understand your comments. I feel the same way in that as far back as I can remember, I have never believed in god(s). In our family we were not particularly religious, but I always thought that something did not quite compute. I remember as a 9-10 year old asking adults where God comes from and inevitably the response would be something like "he's always been there". Only my father would say he didn't know or wasn't sure (I think he may be a closet atheist). It just didn't sound right to me then, and it doesn't sound better now as a 45 year old (29 -you're just a pup:-))

In regard to all the suffering you refer to, my feeling is that it boils down to "shit happens" and has nothing to do with god's predetermination or will. Everything that happens, just does.

293. The Out Campaign

Comment #62158 by SRWB on August 8, 2007 at 12:18 pm

mightyzimbo,

I'm not speaking for Richard Dawkins, but...

If the only reason the choir isn't being converted in droves is because they feel derided, then perhaps they need to grow thicker skins! For if it is as you stated, that Dawkins has indeed made convincing and good points, then a little insult shouldn't change the validity of his arguments. I (personally) would rather that people turn to atheism because it is logical and well-reasoned than because we don't insult people. Derision, or lack thereof, doesn't validate (or invalidate) beliefs; only facts do that.

Besides, I think Richard is pleasantly derisive and only where absolutely necessary :-)

294. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #62103 by SRWB on August 8, 2007 at 6:54 am

McGrath's argument is akin to Dianelos's argument (strange that that long thread involves McGrath as well) which goes something along similar lines like "God fits perfectly into my worldview so it is true". But as usual not a shred of evidence is presented.

295. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61531 by SRWB on August 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Thanks – you beat me to it. What I find interesting is that whilst some atheists have recognized the horror of these words most on this site have written in defence of them. (Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if a Christian leader had said that it may be ethical to kill people because of what they believed?!). But those writing in defence are missing the main point. Harris is not saying that people could be killed because of what they have done but that they can be killed because of what they believe – if that belief could be deemed as dangerous. It is horrendous and even more frightening that so many of you are so tribal in your faith that you cannot countenance criticism of one of your prophets.

David, I would urge you to read it again. You seem to focus in on this line, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." And I agree that this is an extreme position, if it was said in isolation. Harris never once says people can be or should be killed for what they believe; he says "may even be ethical..." As I keep saying, he hedges his comments and makes "killing" such people dependant upon their behavior, and clearly indicates that these people are beyond convincing while inspiring others to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. Finally, he also posits this as a last option, ie, in that these people can't be reasoned with through dialogue and only "if they cannot be captured", we "may be justified in killing them in self-defense".

Once again, (he said wearily), Harris is not a prophet, atheism is not a faith or a "tribe", and we can and do take criticism while dishing it out. But such comments are really rich coming from you and your ilk; I know you may not have killed, tortured or burned any heretics at the stake in a while, but let's remember that was a fine old Christian tradition until you began cherry-picking all the "love thy neighbor" bits out of the good book. Like Billy asks, are you still locking up the children's swings in the playgrounds on Sundays? So give us all a break and lay off the rhetoric.

296. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60933 by SRWB on August 3, 2007 at 6:32 am

David,

You said...

Nice try but that is not what Harris says. We would all agree that people can be judged for their actions but Harris talks about beliefs which can lead to bad actions.

Here is the quote, in context, that I believe David is referring to, so you can judge for yourself...(David, if this is not the quote you are referring to please forward the correct one)

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

Two points need further elaboration. First, the phrases "may even be ethical" and "may be justified" should be sufficient to convince anyone that Harris is not advocating wanton killing just for beliefs people hold. Second, the particular phrase "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others" is perhaps the crux of the issue. To my mind, this at least implies that the perpetrators have moved beyond thought and belief, and have moved to action. Arguably, we now have a completely different set of circumstances and, in this context, Sam's quote makes perfect sense.

The irony is that on another thread David admitted he has "no problem punishing people who have already acted inappropriately or criminally" or "dealing with those who have a previous record".

297. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60715 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Both Bunting and David Flea have misquoted Harris on this statement, and they have been called on it, on a number of threads. The context of the quote is that it is not the "believing" that is dangerous but that the beliefs encourage or actually incite others to render harm, or words to that effect.

298. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60708 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 5:59 pm

What I would like to say is ... McGrath is still full of shit and Hitchens' comments about "enemas and being buried in a matchbox" came to mind!

PZ's article is outstanding. Lots of good info to add to the growing arsenal of reason and logic here.

299. The Out Campaign

Comment #60649 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 3:41 pm

You are right I do not judge God.

Now we're getting somewhere that makes sense, but then this...

And I do believe it is possible to know him. In fact I would claim that I do.

And therein lies the problem. Can you prove that you "know" him? And if so, how will you do so? But please don't quote from your website wherein you list the 10 reasons to believe, like "creation", the "bible", "religion", etc. These have already been debated ad nauseum and provide no convincing evidence (at least that would stand up in court). I know, I know, you'll disagree in your inevitable rebuttal, but we do really need some credible, undeniable proof. So have you got any video or even a black and white photo where you and God get to "know" each other (but not in the Biblical sense :-))? How about a short audio of a conversation you two had?

300. The Out Campaign

Comment #60522 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 6:02 am

Because the first is a judgement I was being asked to make about other people and I do not know. The second is a judgement I was being asked about the nature of God – and what I believe about God is that he is just. Surely you can see the difference?

Oh I can see the difference, but I think you missed the point of my questions(s). If you can't judge people you don't know, how can you judge God who you can't know either? As you said above, it's what you "believe", but in your original response you said you "know that God will judge justly and fairly". Just trying to get it straight.