philh

Perhaps you should read a bit more. yes there were a few chemical weapons found but they were not miltarily significant. Heres the whole story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm the justification for the war was 1 that Iraq had Wmds - they clearly didnt. 2 that Iraq was linked to AQ - they werent 3 that an invasion would free the iraqi people from a brutal dictator - that did happen, but Im not sure the state of chaos there now is necessarily better. Would you sooner live in Iraq now or in 2002?

"I only care that your belief in your pixie results in you being a better or worse person, then I'll treat you according to your resulting ACTIONS, not the belief in the pixie." Well thats the whole point, you write as if belief in pixies are divorced form poeple actions. I suggest that widespread belief in irrational beings does have an impact on peoples actions. Wars are fought because one army believed they have a better imaginary friend than the other. If we abandoned belief in imaginary friends past childhood wars may still be fought but theres a good chance they will be fewer in number.

i agree with Jakee, my reasons for being an atheist are independent of what famous (or not so famous) philosopher thinks. In the case of Flew his argument is the same old god of the gaps argument this time applied to abio genesis. Its just as lame applied there as applied to lightning before we knew what caused that. Flew of course is not qualified in the relevant field so his opinion counts no more than anyone elses.

"Sorry, but none of those are noteworthy in Christian circles of academia. Heck, many Christians believe the Church of Christ is a cult, with all their baptism necessary for salvation, and their belief they are the only right Christian denomination. Have you never heard those jokes? " Sorry one last reponse b4 bed time. I looked up Billy graham Christian academic qualification he has an undergraduate degree in theology , how is that high up in Chrsitian academia whereas Dan Barker is not, seems like they have similar qualifications to me. Im sure many people believe Churhc of christ is a cult and laugh at it, many Protestants think the same of Catholics, Catholics thik the same of Protestans, Mormons think the same of both of them etc etc, So what?

Also question for you Steve, what do you think about flews retraction?

they are certainly more qualified to talk about the bible than Flew is to talk about abio genesis.

I think gw is happenign and we ae at least partly to blame. but I also think much of the press exagerate the extent. i just saw a trailer for a documentary where a talking head says a temp rise of 10 degrees by 2100 will be catastrophic. well Im sure thats true but the IPCC forecast range is between 1.5 to 5. Seems both sides need to get a grip on reality.

"The run of the mill religous person? Not much. However, if a noted religous person such as Billy Graham changed his mind, I'd certainly be curious as to why. " Farrell Till ws a former Church of Christ Pastor who is now the atheist editor of the skeptical reivew if you relly are interested I reccomend reading http://www.theskepticalreview.com/AuthorFarrellTill1.html Dan Barker was an evangelical preacher, has a degree in religion, was an associate pastor in friends Church and Assembly of God and author of many evangelical musicals.He s now co President of the freedom from Religion association. You can read his book "Losing Faith in Faith " or check out his story here: http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/ Here is a longer list of deconversion stories http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/tsr/list.html The fact that ex minsiters have embraced atheism does not prove atheism is true. but what it does do is to demolish one Christian argument i have heard that runs on the theme "if you would just try and let Christ into your heart you will know the truth " these ex preachers can testify that is not true.

So assuming his repentence was sincere is he more likely to go to heaven than a non Christian who hasnt murdered anyone, yes or no?

Yes there is , here is jeff Dahmers pastors own words: Jeff was judged not by his faith, but by his crimes. The questioner always seemed to hope I’d answer: “No, he wasn’t sincere.” The questioner seemed to be looking for a way to reject Jeffrey as a brother in Christ instead of seeing him as a sinner who has come to God. The subtext of such questions was simple. They didn’t want to think of Jeff as a brother. Such ungraciousness is contrary to the Christian spirit. for the whole article read: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20399_1.html

peer reivew is not perfect but we dont have anything better at the moment.

cience isnt done by surveys of sicentists but by publishing peer reviewed research. That hsould be the judge of this issue not any survey like this.

"I don't measure up. I'm not depending on my goodness to save me, but rather I lean on the grace of God. " So you dont measure up to a supposed perfect god who you believ created an imperfect being? Well so what? Why should you measure up? If god creates imperfect being he shouldnt be suprised if they act imperfectly. The fact that the Christian serial killer gets to heaven but the non christian (insert your conception of god person here) goes to hell shows us that Christiainty (and other mono theistic religions do the same ) favours belief over compassion as its higher moral principle. In other words we dont really care what you do, we care what you believe. Is it any wonder then that people end up killing people and repressing people in the name of religion? This is not a coicindence. It is an extension of this sort of thinking. If the god of mono theists came out and said I dont care if you believe in me or not just dont hurt innocent people we might live in a different world. But the god of mono theists infact says the opposite, more importannt than anything else is belive in me, bow down and worship me. The actions of suicide bombers are a direct result of this philosophy. Its not just limited to Muslim suicide bombers either. If you are a Catholic Inquisitor torturing people to save (in your mind ) their immortal souls your tortute will make sense to you. Its clear then that religion itself is the problem. its a philosophy that rewards a Christian mass murderer and punishes a non christian man of peace or science or art. So ultimatley the "crime" of non belief is greater than the crime of mass murder in religious thought. If the world sees how awful this is ,it might be a better place.

So now we are getting somewhere. So the god of the bible favours serial killers who follow him and will punish good men of peace and science if they dont; what a c*nt.

so you agree c is the correct answer?

I tihnk its a great step forward, hope they can deploy these soon and maybe casualties in war zones could decline and it might improve the image of the West if we are being shot at with lethal weapons and retailitng with non lethal weapons.

Another way to put it, who is more likely to get into heaven? a) Gahndi who campaigned for non violence but was a Hindu and thereofre deinied the divintiy of Christ b)Francis Crick co discoverer of the structure of the DNA who has enormously helped progress in bioligical science but who resigned from his College in protest that they built a Christian chapel. c)Jef Dahmer the serial killer who ate his many vicitms but then became a Chrsitian and asked Christ for forgiveness. I think you will find the answer is c and that reveals a lot about the nature of religion and its affect on the world.

So someone that does good deeds and acts with compasion but doesnt sign up to be one of the faithful can't get into heaven. But someone that does bad deeds and does sign up to the faith can get into heaven. Is it any wonder then that people who are religious are more keen to acts religiously (however that is defined) than to act with compassion?

Whilst the frequent attorocities done in the name of the bible dont neccesarily imply the the bible is immoral the attrocities in the bible do. Genocide is celebrated in several passages and that should be enough for us not to follow it. Even without this the fact of the continual violece and oppresion made in the name of religion should at least make us consider the possibility that the problem is not just the religious but religion itself.

Yeah sorry didnt spot that. Also when Luther said slay and kill the Jews he probably only meant it in a spiritual sense.

"Nearly 500 years ago, God used Martin Luther to recapture the foundational doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone." did god also use martin Luther to help inspire the holocasut with his book “On the Jews and Their Lies" where he said: “Jerusalem was destroyed over 1400 years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world for about 300 years… During that time they held us captive and killed us… So we are even at fault for not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then… We are at fault in not slaying them” ?

"You obviously have never read many of my posts on religion and especially the Bible. I have said many times there has been way too many atrocities done in the name of God. (see my question in the thread: Honest Questions for God) " I haven't kept track of all your posts no, thats correct. I am glad you and I agree there have been way too many attorcities done in the name of the god. But perhaps you have not been paying attention to my posts. My point is not that you personally support the atrocities done in the name of god but that the attrocities are a likely result of the belief in god and the desire to follow the teachings of the bible. You often talk of your own beliefs and they dont seem unreasonable. But if you pay attention to what I am writing it should be clear that the debate isnt about your beliefs but the effect of belief in the bible as a whole. The world is bigger than your beliefs. The fact that I often pursue a literal interpretation of the bible is to show where it can lead and also to show that such an intepretation is not unreasonable if one actually believes in the bible. The solution is not to reinterpret the bible so the ugly bits go away, its to junk the bible all together. As long people believe the bible is inpsired by god we should not be suprised when they take it seriously when it says kill fags, sabbath breaker, disbelievers etc if the bible says put disbelievers in a fire and we all agree it meant a metaphorical fire should we be suprised that those disbelievers end up on a very real fire? "BTW, calling you a fundy is only stating the obvious. You prefer not to study scripture to gain good insight, but prefer to take everything literal so it will support your worldview that there is no God. " You dont know me mate, I was religious, I studied the bible and eventually I started to doubt, the more that doubt grew the more i realised I was wrong, I looked at the evdience objectively and i changed my mind. I abandoned my religion in the face of the evidence. If you think a fundamentalist is someone that changes there mind in the light of evidence you may wish to reconsider who you label a fundamentralist. Ill state it here as clear as I can: I believed in god and changed my mind becuase of the lack of evidence and thhe evidence against the bible; I will gladly change my mind back if new evidence arrived convincing me otherwise. I know you dont want to continue with this debate and thats fine, but perhaps answer me this one last question and we will find out who is the fundamentalist, would you change your mind and disbelieve in god if the evidence warranted it?

No, you are simply assuming the bible is free of contradictions to assume that anything that contradicts itself must be a metaphor. There are good bits in the bible and there are ugly bits in the bible. You fail to recognise the ugly bits, when conforonted with one you just assume they are all metaphors. Fortunatley you take the ugly bits such as kill sabbath breakers and punish children for their parents sins as metaphorcial. But the whole problem is others before you,today (and most likely in the future) have/do not. They take the ugly bits quite literally as a result countless people have suffered awful deaths. I have seen a video of someone being stoned to death its gruesome and yes its religiously motivated. Those people were following exactly what it says in the bible. Lets not forget you are advocating follwoing the bible and thats what they did. With regards to the use of the word generations, yes agreed it is not in Exodus but in Deut. According to most scholars Deuternomy has its own author also thought to be resposible for Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Since most scholars believe that D (the author of Deuternomy) lived after the original authors such as J and E, its at leats questionable to simply agree with the re insertion of generations in Exodus. After all why should we agree with D's spin on it rather than J/E? But quite frankly it makes no difference whether generations should be there or not. Lets just assume everything you say is true, the point still remains: in the bible its not simply just but ordained by god to punish children for their parents sin. Thats undeniable and that should be condemmed. If god acts mostly in nice ways but even just once in an unjust way we should recognise it as such and condenm it. After all if somone conducts themselves mostly within the law and then occasionally breaks it we dont say "well thats ok they're usually good we'll let them off that double homicide. " we arrest them. Similarly if god loves most of the world most of the time but does this horrible act of punishing children for the religious beliefs of their parents for lets say only 4 genrations out of a thousand its still 4 generations too much, its still to be condemmed. You yourself have said you wouldnt want to punish the children of the Nazis who killed millions. The god of the bible will punish many genrations simply for the crime of not following him. That must surely be considered unjust and is at least one (of many) reasons why we should not follow the bible. You may compare me to a fundamentalist if you like, I dont care for personal insults; but the problem is not with me who sees there are good and bad parts to the bible. The problem is with those that fail to see there are any bad parts of the bible. They are the ones that read religious texts and go off killing homo sexuals,sabbath breakers, burning their religious opponents etc etc . This behaviour comes from somewhere and faliure to recognise and condenm those parts of the bible that are ugly is at least partly to blame.

Sorry i didnt c your second post. "the curse is for those who “hate" God, not “love God but screw up.” Did you read it? First off its not just those that hate god but their children , also their children and their children again. Now what is the difference between this and saying we shall not just punish the Nazis but their children, their grandchildren and their great grandchildren. Now gods love is clearly stated as conditional on those that keep his commandments, so you are wrong when you say god reserves his wrath for those that hate him, its clear its there for those that dont keep his commandments. this is evidenced by the fact that he gives out the death penalty for simple infringmenets like breaking the sabbath. You talk about context, but you ignore the context of the passage. This passage is one of the ten commandments and god is stressing how important it is not to worship another god (screwing up?) and what he will do if you do; not just punish you, but punish your children, your grandchildren, and your great grand children. God even tells us his motivation for this , its because he is jealous. All your other examples merely show that god doesnt act consistently in the bible. Human beings dont always act consistently and since the bible was written by (most likely) several different human beings thats exactly what we would expect. A fallible god character created by fallible men.

Well you said you would not punish current Germans for the crimes of the Nazis, this is about 3 generations away yet the bible clearly states that punishing generations more than this is ok. Furthermore the entire concept of original sin implies that the sins of the fathers are inherited by the children, further highlighting your massive contradiction. Btw it is you who who have added your own context to suit your needs. The actualt text doesnt say generation it says "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. you added the word generations to make it suit your these. ( i think what the bible meant to say was...)Quite frankly i am amzed you can ask "Does it mean to convey the idea that God punishes the children for the sins of their fathers?" when its written exactly that clear as day. Do you think every single word in the bible is a metaphor? When are you going to let go? the fact that god offers mercy for those that love him and keep his commandments - which is not anyone that breaks the sabbath for example- is irrelvant to the proven fact that he does visit the sins of the fathers onto their children. Lets note also hes offering mercy implying we are guilty before weve even committe the crime. A ridiculous form of justice if ever there was one. Thankfully people fdont follow the bible, it will be an ugly world if we do.