Comments on: Quote of the day

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:21:00 +0000

(i) > My point is that it is just as ridiculous, and >transparently unscientific ...
>Sure it's unscientific. That only makes it ridiculous to >scientists.

Not just unscientific, but blatently and transparently very very unscientific, and therefore fair game for
>anyone...with even the very faintest idea about what >science is.

(ii) You guys seem to be talking about "Christianity" as if this is a well-defined system of beliefs. In particular most Christians definitely do not believe in a
>God who willfully decieves the people that he has created >by presenting evidence in his creation that can only lead >them to conclude, using God created powers of reasoning, >that he doesn't exist, thus damning them to Hell, is not >a good God at all, and thus is not the God most >Christians think that they are worshipping."

Almost all Christians would not accept that God wilfully decieves them, and many (maybe most) don't believe in hell. Some don't even believe in God. Of course the sort who come knocking on your door tend to have beliefs at the madder end of the spectrum...

(iii) I'm proud to part of this thread-length record attempt, which has been of quite a high quality since Jimmy left.

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:23:00 +0000

Yes, I’d agree with the comment as to ‘proves’, and ‘any’. My stridency may stem from the fact that I talk to both my local Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses on a regular (door-step) basis. I am polite, mind.

And this is another addition to the thread.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:06:00 +0000

Andrew,

I agree with everything you say apart from your misuse of the words "any" and "proves" in your last sentence. I absolutely agree with you that, if the God descibed by Christianity exists, he's a right bastard — but that's just my judgment of his character, not an absolute proven truth.

Have we broken the comment-thread-length record yet, John?

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:38:00 +0000

Yes, but if free will is God given (indeed, I believe the argument that an omniscient, omnipotent creator God makes ‘free will’, at least without resort to the denial of logic that you argues follows from a belief in an omnipotent God), and the world if God created, and if in this world he systematically places evidence that can only lead the people that he has created to deny the literal truth of His Bible, and then he condemns them to Hell for that, then he is not Good. Very far from it, in fact.

But if we argue that ‘good’ doesn’t mean ‘good’, and logic doesn’t apply anyway – despite it being a God given gift – then we have no reason to trust the Bible. Except faith, yet God has created us to question, and has rewarded this questioning with an increasingly coherent and systematic understanding of the universe – marked by increasing power over nature and the conditions of our existence. Of course, these same character traits – God created – lead us to an eternity (an ETERNITY) of suffering in Hell, then he is not good.

This is not ignorance of Christianity – so don’t insult me this way. I understand people hold to the ideas of faith and free will and the all good, all powerful creator God. It doesn’t mean, because people hold to them, that they make any sense, and the fact that their not making sense is explained away by the invocation of ‘faith’ proves nothing more than the God who demands this is not only a trickster, but is downright wicked.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:16:00 +0000

That is to say, yes, there’s illogicality in The Bible, but no, it’s not illogical to believe it, as long as you also believe the other bits of crap that back it up.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:06:00 +0000

> ... is not a good God at all, and thus is not the God most Christians think that they are worshipping.

Actually, that's exactly the God Christians worship. The ideas behind it are called "faith" and "free will". You may have heard of them, though I don't hold out much hope. Anyone so woefully ignorant of Christianity should perhaps refrain from criticising it, in case they end up looking really stupid. This is exactly what I'm talking about, you see?

> For someone who is ignorant of politics and history to take the piss out of a BNP supporter ...

You're talking here about someone who has no opinion whatsoever on whether black people should be allowed to live in Britain? Firstly, I'd say that that person has no standing to ridicule a BNP supporter; secondly, and more importantly, I'd say that that person doesn't exist.

> My point is that it is just as ridiculous, and transparently unscientific ...

Sure it's unscientific. That only makes it ridiculous to scientists.

> Er, does that include the two mutually-exclusive creation myths therein?

Unfortunately, if you accept that logic itself, being part of the universe of existence, is a construct of God's will, and that omnipotence implies the ability to do the paradoxically impossible — both of which ideas, obvious nonsense though they are to you and me, are accepted by Christians — then yes, it does. Endlessly annoying when you're trying to argue with the buggers, but there you go. Their beliefs are not inherently illogical; they're just wrong. (I'll concede some ground on irrationality: there are irrational bits in The Bible, true. Illogicality, though — no.)

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:40:00 +0000

S2 tells us : - "there is nothing logically or rationally wrong with the Book of Genesis"

Er, does that include the two mutually-exclusive creation myths therein?
And "rationally"? We're to believe that back then Jewish patriarchs lived to be 900 years old? And they sired a nation of humans who can't make it past 120, and yet there's no such thing as evolution? That's rational?

The B of G is dead neat in all sorts of ways, but rational and logical it isn't and really that's not a failing, it wasn't part of the design spec.

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:26:00 +0000

S2 – of course it would be ridiculous to believe that an omnipotent God *couldn’t* create the earth over the course of 7 days and make it look millions of years older than it is. My point is that it is just as ridiculous, and transparently unscientific (even to your average village idiot), to believe that this *is* how the earth was formed.

By: john b

john b — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:25:00 +0000

For anyone who doesn’t accept David’s comment, how about this one? –

For someone who is ignorant of politics and history to take the piss out of a BNP supporter for being ignorant of politics and history is indeed inappropriate. However, it is quite appropriate for them to take the piss out of a BNP supporter for being a BNP supporter. Indeed it should be encouraged.

By: David

David — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:17:00 +0000

For someone who is ignorant of science and evolution to take the piss out of a creationist for being ignorant of science and evolution is indeed inappropriate. However, it is quite appropriate for them to take the piss out of a creationist for being a creationist. Indeed it should be encouraged.