Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lucretius · 08-09-2007, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave
Of course Britain is not what it once was. My view is that this is because they have repudiated the Biblical principles that once made them great.

In which case how do you explain the fact that countries such as Spain,France and Portugal all of which have an established (Catholic) Church have at the same time as the UK which has an established (Protestant) Church have ALL "lost " their Empires?
Surely it can't be that other factors are responsible can it ?
In fact since the "decline" in these traditional powers the only one that came even close to having an "Empire " and becoming one of the 2 World Super Powers was Soviet Russia hardly an example of wordly power being reliant on "Biblical Principles" now is it ?

08-09-2007, 05:21 AM

Dave is the sort of bloke who thinks Central America means Kansas.

Pilsboy5 · 08-09-2007, 05:34 AM

I'd like dave to explain why Britain/The UK is in decline, without recourse to mentioning the loss of The British Empire (which to be honest some people now feel quite embarassed about).

Calilasseia · 08-09-2007, 07:00 AM

Especially in the light of the historical facts that Britain wasn't "in decline" as such after those two World Wars, it was recovering from severe body blows, which is an entirely different issue. It took over a generation to overcome that legacy. It would have been surprising if it hadn't.

From this paper published by the UK government (it's a House of Commons internal research document made public) we are told that from 1901 to 1991, the UK population increased by 51%. Extrapolating back from a 1991 figure of around 56 million, that gives us a 1901 population of just 27,400,000. Assuming that the figure had reached 29 million by 1914, we find ourselves looking at the World War I casualty figures of 910,000 dead, we lost fully three percent of our entire population in that war. Add in the 1917 Spanish Flu epidemic which claimed another 225,000 lives, and nearly 4% of the entire UK population perished in four years. Anyone requiring more precise data with respect to actual UK population figures can doubtless find the requisite data if they perform a detailed search - after all, a number of key sets of Census data from various years are available online and some can even be searched for genealogical purposes - but I suspect 29 million is, on the basis of the brief survey I conducted, a reasonable total for the 1914 UK population, given the extrapolations from the above official government link.

The percentage terms for World War II are lower, because [1] the population had grown beyond 30 million by 1939, and [2] the absolute death toll was lower at 385,000. But the economic cost was far greater - Britain was able to bankroll its participation in World War I independently, whilst in World War II, it had to engage in the Lease-Lend policy and effectively ask the United States to be a loan banker for 40 years. It wasn't until 1986 that Britain paid that off in full. Therefore Britain was not "in decline" as such, it was, in effect, recovering from major blows to its national economic and social health, and working to pay off a loan whose purpose was to minimise the damage in the first place. Alongside all of this, whether or not a significant part of the population got their knickers wet over a 3,000 year old book is utterly fucking trivial.

Moreover, unlike the United States, the UK possesses an established church. One that has been a participant in government. Taking note of this, Dave? During the VERY SAME PERIOD YOU CLAIM THAT BRITAIN WAS "IN DECLINE BECAUSE IT TURNED ITS BACK ON GOD", the UK had MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY PERFORMING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ROLES. Look up the distinction between "The Lords Temporal" and "The Lords Spiritual" in the House of Lords, one of our two legislative chambers (we Brits have been nothing if not idiosyncratic about such things!), a part of the official process of government in which Anglican bishops wielded influence. No doubt the "but these weren't true Christians" argument is just around the corner, but then there are many people who declare themselves 'Christian' and claim just as passionate a belief in God, but who don't share the lurid fantasies of the Falwells, Phelpses, Terrys and Swaggarts of this world (for which the human species is doubtless duly grateful). Moreover, our newly acquired Prime Minsiter, Gordon Brown, hails from an ecclesiastical background - his father was a major figure in the Church of Scotland.

FACTS, Dave. VERIFIABLE FACTS. Try acquiring some one day. They'll make a world of difference to your output.

Baalazel · 08-09-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

King Saul ... http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/116 ... of course we cannot prove this case ... I would not claim that we could, but we can say that this is a very plausible explanation.

As I expected, you are incapable of making the argument on your own..

Did you not claim the Bible’s historical accuracy?

“of course we can not prove this case”?

“I would not claim that we could”?

“but we can say that this a very plausible explanation”!?

You have claimed the case proven in every post you have made.

You have left no room in your defense of scripture for plausibility.

Your arguments are a fraud. By your own admission your claims of superiority for the Bible are false. A liar would have done no better. A dissembler might fare as poorly. A charlatan would seem as foolish.

Now let’s turn to Dr. Thompson. I will address you here rather than Dr. Thompson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Thompson

A skeptic wrote to ask the following question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic

“Bible contradictions, are they real?” He then answered his own question (which makes one wonder why—if he already knew the answer—he was writing us in the first place) Yes, How did Saul die? 2 Samuel 21:12 says he was killed by a Philistine. 1 Samuel 31:4 says he killed himself. 2 Samuel 1:18-20 says he was killed by an Amalekite. Which one is it?”

I do have one question. How does 2 Sam. 1: 18-20 fit into all this? Did Dr. Thompson mean to cite 2 Sam. 1:8-10? I will assume so.

Quote:

With just a few short sentences, the skeptic appears to have documented a legitimate discrepancy within the biblical text. The key word here, however, is “appears.”

No, the key word here is “legitimate.” Or perhaps “discrepancy” is the key word. In any event it isn’t “appears.”

Quote:

As is so often the case, there is much more to the matter than merely quoting a single verse or two in an effort to make the Bible appear to contradict itself. An examination of these passages—in their historical context—makes for an interesting and educational study.

Well, it is the ‘historical context” we are concerned with isn’t it. The fact remains however that there is no evidence outside the Bible that any of the people we are about to meet existed at all. What we are about to observe is an argument that goes like this. The events recorded in the Bible are historically accurate because the Bible is historically accurate. You are fond of this sort of argument Dave. It contains the entirety of your apologetics.

Quote:

Let us begin with the skeptic’s claim that 2 Samuel depicts Saul as having been killed by “a Philistine.” The context for the statement in 2 Samuel 21:12 can be found one book earlier in 1 Samuel 31, which centers on the fact that the Israelites and the Philistines were engaged in an important battle against each other.

Moving the play to 1 Sam. Is a wonderful diversionary tactic. 2 Sam. 21:12 does not suit you? Why I wonder. Let’s quote it shall we. From the King James 1611 Oxford edition from London: Oxford University Press. It is the Bible I have had since I was 16 and which I used in Bible college. I hope it meets with your approval. Wide margin BTW to allow for notes.

2 Samuel 21: 12
“And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathon his son from the men of Jabesh-gilead, which had stolen them from the street of Beth-shan, were the Philistines had hanged them when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa.”

So we find that the Philistines did kill Saul. Let’s quote it again incase you have some reason to doubt the Word of God. the Philistines had slain Saul at Gilboa. Quite plain to me.

A simple reading of the text leads me to assert that Saul died at the hands of the Philistines. This will prove controversial for us later so let me quote the scriptural passage in question one more time lest we forget it is the Word of God the Philistines had slain Saul at Gilboa.

But you are correct, it does not say “a Philistine killed Saul.”
How many Philistines does it take to kill a king of the Israelites? No more than one I should think.

Quote:

1 Samuel 31:1 indicates that “the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa.” From this simple commentary by the writer, it is clear that the battle was not going well for God’s people. Israel’s finest-trained armies had been thoroughly and completely routed. Her battle-weary soldiers not only were in disarray, but full retreat. Even their king, Saul, was in peril. In fact, the next two verses go on to explain: “And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Malchishua, the sons of Saul. And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was greatly distressed by reason of the archers.” Israel’s first king was mortally wounded by the Philistines’ arrows. 1 Sam. 31:

I can’t find the verse that says Saul was mortally wounded by the archers. Do you mean to say the last line of 1 Sam. 31: 3 should actually read “mortally wounded” rather than “greatly distressed”? This is God’s Word you know. Should you be rewriting it at this late date?

Let me quote 1 Sam.31: 3 from the King James 1611. “And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore wounded of the archers.” Sore wounded-greatly distressed-mortally wounded. I can certainly understand why anyone would think the Bible contradicts itself. But this will all be settled soon. You hope. Don’t you?

Quote:

Knowing he was in his death throes, Saul determined not to fall into the hands of his enemies while still living.

In his death throes. How dramatic. The Bible is full of drama. It would be really dramatic if there were a verse that said “Knowing he was in his death throes, Saul determined not to fall into the hands of his enemies while still living.” Saul was scared to death of falling to the Philistines. How near was his death? Minutes? Hours? Days?

You know he was in his death throes, tell us how long he had. You have turned “greatly distressed by the archers” into death throes. I might even give you death throes if you had quoted K.J. 1611 to the tune of “sore wounded of the archers.” Sore wounded could be stretched into death throes. Greatly distressed can’t be stretched into much more than extremely uncomfortable under the circumstances.

Quote:

He therefore turned to his armorbearer and said: “Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me” (21:4a). Verses 4-6 present the conclusion of the matter: “But his armorbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took his sword, and fell upon it. And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell upon his sword, and died with him. So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armorbearer, and all his men, that same day together.”

Saul committed suicide. But I remember we found earlier that the Philistines killed Saul. Are we confused? It “appears” so.

Quote:

So how did Saul die? Did “a Philistine” kill him, as the skeptic alleges? Or did Saul commit suicide to escape capture and possible torture at the hands of some of his most feared enemies, as 1 Samuel 31:4 seems to indicate?

“Seems to indicate” should be read here as “this is what the text says.”

RECAP! The Philistines killed Saul. Saul committed suicide. Did Saul commit suicide before the Philistines killed him or did the Philistines kill Saul before he committed suicide. I know, I know, it only “appears” to be a contradiction. It “appears” you still have Saul dying twice.

Quote:

First, notice how cautiously the skeptic’s question to us was worded in its original form. The skeptic carefully crafted his statement to read: “2 Samuel 21:12 says he was killed by a Philistine.” But the text nowhere states that a Philistine killed Saul. Rather, it says, “the Philistines (plural) slew Saul in Gilboa.” This is a subtle but important difference. Considering the context, was it not the Philistines (as they battled against the Israelites) who ultimately were responsible for Saul’s self-inflicted wound and subsequent death? Indeed it was.

I read your argument so far as this, since Saul was battling the Philistines and things weren’t going so well, Saul, fearful of the treatment he would receive at the hands of his enemies, killed himself and we should blame it on the Philistines.

Then you want to castigate the poor skeptic yet again for an erroneous article? Has Christian apologetics fallen so far that you defend God’s Word with grammar?

Quote:

Suppose a modern-day soldier were in the same situation. Wounded by an enemy’s bullet, he takes his own life on the battlefield to avoid capture and torture. Were a journalist to write an article for a national or local newspaper, might he not (justifiably) report that the soldier died at the hands of his enemy as a direct result of the battle? Indeed he might, for had the events never unfolded as they did, obviously the solider would not have died under such circumstances. But if the reporter continued his story in the next day’s edition of that same newspaper, and in giving additional details of the circumstances surrounding the battle went on to state that the young man had taken his own life rather than fall into the enemy’s possession and possibly become a tool of betrayal against his comrades, would any reader of the two-part account suggest that the journalist had “contradicted” himself? Hardly. The normal reader, with average common sense, would recognize that in the general context, the enemy had caused the young soldier’s death. In the immediate context, his death had been at his own hand as a direct result of his fear of being captured by that enemy.

Oh, I forgot that the scripture must be read with the understanding that God used general context to inspire some parts of his Word and immediate context to inspire some parts. The difficulty arises when he uses general context and immediate context to inspire the same text. Then we might misconstrue a suicide as a murder. Or a murder as suicide. Or suicide as self defense.

Quote:

The circumstances surrounding Saul’s death were no different. The writer of 2 Samuel 21 was correct, in the general context, in assigning Saul’s demise to “the Philistines” (not “a Philistine,” as the skeptic alleged),

How many Philistines does it take to kill a king of the Israelites? There’s no punch line. Between thirty thousand and none if the king commits suicide.

Tens of thousands of soldiers in all wars have abandoned suicide and allowed themselves to be captured. In fact it is the duty of a soldier to face capture and so withhold enemy forces from battle.

It is telling that you place the onus on the journalist and not on the actions of the soldier as you should. To commit suicide during battle, won or lost, is cowardly and treasonous.

Yes, the circumstances of Saul’s death are different. The chosen King of Israel committed suicide during battle against the enemies of God.

The circumstances surrounding Saul’s death are different because you claim it is taken from a book your god inspired and wrote.

The circumstances of Saul’s death are different because you can’t give a clear answer to a simple question. How did Saul Die?

The circumstances of Saul’s death are different because we don’t know how he died.

Quote:

because it was in the battle with the Philistines that Saul found himself dying of wounds caused by their arrows and thus committed suicide. The writer of 1 Samuel 31:4 was correct, in the immediate context, in providing additional information regarding exactly how that death occurred—i.e., at Saul’s own hand as he lay mortally wounded and in danger of capture and torture.

As you afdave said at the top of your OP the case can’t be made. The Bible gives different versions of Saul’s death and you are incapable of making the contradiction “appear” to disappear.

Fraud, I say. Failed apologetics. Failed apologist.

Just skim the next part. Same old stuff. Yada, yada.

Quote:

But what about the story that is recorded in 2 Samuel 1:1-16, wherein an Amalekite claimed to have killed the Israelite’s beloved king? The context of this story is as follows. David had just returned from a battle with the Amalekites. While in the city of Ziklag, a young man in ragged clothing appeared before him with a report of Saul’s death. The young man, himself an Amalekite, stated: “As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul was leaning upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and the horsemen followed hard after him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, ‘Here am I.’ And he said unto me, ‘Who art thou?’ And I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ And he said unto me, ‘Stand, I pray thee, beside me, and slay me; for anguish hath taken hold of me, because my life is yet whole in me.’ So I stood beside him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord” (2 Samuel 1:6-10).
David’s response to this story was one of outrage. At hearing the young man’s report, he inquired: “How wast thou not afraid to put forth thy hand to destroy Jehovah’s anointed?” (2 Samuel 1:14). Turning to the Amalekite, he sternly said: “Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, ‘I have slain Jehovah’s anointed’.” David then ordered one of his own soldiers to slay the young man as punishment for the atrocity he claimed to have committed—the murder of Israel’s king, Saul (2 Samuel 1:15-16).
How can this story be reconciled with the accounts in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 21? Isolated from both the general and immediate historical context, the simple fact is that it cannot. Is there, then, an unavoidable, unexplainable contradiction as the skeptic has alleged? No, there is not.

There is another possible explanation. In his book, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer elaborated on this possibility when he wrote that the

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer

Amalekite’s story is not presented as being an actual record of what happened during Saul’s dying moments; it is only a record of what the Amalekite mercenary said had taken place. Coming with Saul’s crown and bracelet in hand and presenting them before the new king of Israel, the Amalekite obviously expected a handsome reward and high preferment in the service of Saul’s successor. In the light of the straightforward account in the previous chapter, we must conclude that the Amalekite was lying in order to gain a cordial welcome from David.

What straightforward account afdave? Nothing is straightforward about Saul’s death. As I asked before, did the Philistines kill Saul before he committed suicide or did Saul commit suicide after the Philistines killed him? No, wait, did Saul commit suicide before the Philistines killed him or after they killed him?

Quote:

But what had actually happened was that after Saul had killed himself, and the armorbearer had followed his lord’s example by taking his own life (1 Sam. 31:5), the Amalekite happened by at that moment, recognized the king’s corpse, and quickly stripped off the bracelet and crown before the Philistine troops discovered it.

Capitalizing on his good fortune, the Amalekite then escaped from the bloody field and made his way down to David’s headquarters in Ziklag. But his hoped-for reward turned out to be a warrant for his death; David had him killed on the spot.... His glib falsehood had brought him the very opposite of what he had expected, for he failed to foresee that David’s high code of honor would lead him to make just the response he did (1982, pp. 181-182, emp. added).

Quote:

It would not be unusual for a Bible writer to record a story that was told at the time as the truth when, in fact, it was a lie. Moses recorded Satan’s lie to Eve in Genesis 3:4, without comment on its false nature.

That would be because the serpent was the only one who told the truth in the whole sordid affair. “Ye shall not surely die” said the serpent. And of course ,they didn’t.

Quote:

The writer of 1 Kings 13 recorded the lie of the older prophet to the younger prophet (a lie that ultimately caused the younger prophet’s death).

This is the verse.

1Kings 13: 18 “He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying Bring him back with thee into thy house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.”

The lie was presented as a lie, not as truth.

Quote:

John recorded Peter’s three-fold lie when he denied being one of Christ’s disciples

Peter’s denial of Christ takes place in John 18: 15-27. Jesus tells Peter he will deny him in John 13: 38.

The point is that all of these examples are presented as lies. There is no way to make a comparison between them and the Amalikite’s story. There is no indication from the text that the Amalikite is anything but truthful.

Quote:

(18:15-27). Other similar examples could be offered. The point is, just because the Amalekite mercenary claimed to have killed King Saul does not mean that he was telling the truth when he made such a claim. In fact, we know he was not because elsewhere (e.g., 1 Samuel 31:4-5) the actual facts of the case are presented with great clarity. Once again, the skeptic’s claim of a biblical discrepancy can be answered by a common-sense appeal to reason that provides a solution consistent with the available facts. God: 2; skeptics: 0.

There is no evidence in the text to make the assertion that the Amalikite was lying. The most powerful evidence that he told the truth is that David believed him and had him killed for his affront to God’s chosen.

A plain reading of the text must confirm the Amalikite’s truthfulness. He killed Saul.

A plain reading of the text confirms that Saul was killed by the Philistines.

A plain reading of the text confirms that Saul committed suicide.

A plain reading of the text confirms the contradiction.

A plain reading of the Bible confirms it to be contradictory and unhistorical.

Baal

xrayzed · 08-10-2007, 12:24 AM

I ran into this same sort of piffling asserstion on another board, from a fundy Baptist preacher who insisted the US was founded on biblical principles. When I pointed out how they drew on points such as Roman law he handwaved this objection away with the comment "they were reading the Bible, they weren't reading Tacitus".

Since I didn't want this load of crap to go uncontested I posted this:

Quote:

The classical roots of the American Republic, from "The Founding Fathers & the Classics", Dr. Joe Wolverton II, The New American, 20 September 2004 (available online)

From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers looked to classical history as a reliable guide to their successful experiment in building a lasting republic…

The Founders learned very early in life to venerate the illuminating stories of ancient Greece and Rome. They learned these stories, not from secondary sources, but from the classics themselves…

Classical training usually began at age eight, whether in a school or at home under the guidance of a private tutor... with a healthy diet of Greek and Latin, and required that they learn to master Virgil, Horace, Justinian, Tacitus, Herodotus, Plutarch, Lucretius and Thucydides. Further along in their education, students were required to translate Cicero's Orations and Virgil's Aeneid. They were expected to translate Greek and Latin passages aloud, write out the translations in English, and then re-translate the passages back into the original language using a different tense.

Whether at home or in a schoolhouse, the goal of education in the early days of our nation was to instill virtue in the students. The Founders were taught that free societies were sustained by a virtuous populace, and that, if a society were to abandon a study of the classics, that same society would eventually abandon the virtues championed by the classical authors…

Twenty-seven of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were college educated. Moreover, of the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, 30 were college graduates... Fortunately for the young Founding Fathers, the teachers of the day exercised their students in Greek and Latin, so that their pupils could meet the rigorous entrance requirements of colonial colleges...

James Madison had it no easier when he applied for entrance to the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) in 1769. Madison and his fellow applicants were obliged to demonstrate "the ability to write Latin prose, translate Virgil, Cicero, and the Greek gospels and a commensurate knowledge of Latin and Greek grammar…"

American colonial curricula were based on the Latin "trivium" of rhetoric, logic, and grammar, as well as the "quadrivium" of arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy… Students were taught lessons in virtue and liberty from the works of Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Livy, Sallust, Tacitus and Polybius. Thomas Jefferson's classmates recalled that he studied at least 15 hours a day and carried his Greek grammar book with him wherever he went…

The most popular Roman hero of the Founding Fathers was Cicero, the silver-tongued Roman orator. Cicero lived from approximately 106 B.C. to 43 B.C. John Adams, in his Defense of the Constitution, said of Cicero: "All of the ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher united than Cicero..."

Famed patriot Charles Carroll of Carrollton invoked the record of Roman historian Tacitus when he wrote that the conspiracy of his own time had led America and England to "that degree of liberty and servitude which [Servius Sulpicius] Galba ascribes to the Roman people in the speech to [Gaius Calpurnius] Piso: those same Romans, a few years after that period, deified the horse of Caligula."

The equally eminent and historically minded John Adams also applied analogies from the Roman republic to the increasingly open threat to the foundations of English liberty by corrupt legislators…

James Madison insightfully noted that most of the tyrants of history masqueraded as democrats, and over time revealed themselves to be power hungry dictators and shameless demagogues. Alexander Hamilton, an astute student of classical history, devoted his first contribution to The Federalist Papers to a warning against tyrants or "men who have over-turned the liberties of republics, commencing as demagogues and ending as tyrants."

Source: The Founding Fathers & the Classics, Dr. Joe Wolverton II, The New American. 20 September 2004

Sauron · 08-10-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Of course Britain is not what it once was. My view is that this is because they have repudiated the Biblical principles that once made them great.

That assumes that Britain was ever based upon so-called "biblical principles".
The evidence says otherwise.

Quote:

America will suffer the same fate if she follows the same course.

America is also not based upon biblical principles - unless biblical principles include land-theft, grave-robbing, and forced religious worship.

So much for Dave's crippled arguments.

HoverCraftWheel · 08-10-2007, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

America is also not based upon biblical principles - unless biblical principles include land-theft, grave-robbing, and forced religious worship.

So much for Dave's crippled arguments.

Land-theft and forced worship sound pretty biblical to me :devil1:. I must admit though that I can't think of a biblical example of grave-robbing off hand.

LordLeckie · 08-10-2007, 04:19 AM

Ive heard of statements like these before but damn.... its stuning to see one so recent.... im at a loss for words.

Worldtraveller · 08-10-2007, 06:12 AM

So let's see if I can summarize a bit....

Dave has claimed that if one hasn't read the bible, one shouldn't critisize it. Dave claims to have read the bible, but his understanding and selective quoting indicates that he likely hasn't.

Dave has demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge about (the list is going to be long....):

Geology
Physics
Archeology
Biology
Science in general
History
US government (particularly the Constitution)

He has admitted to not having read any significant literature (except from pre-approved YEC sources) on any of these topics, yet continues to display both ignorance and hypocrisy by continually crticizing them.

I think that deserves a 'well done'....in an Eddie Izzard kind of way.

Cheers,
Lane

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-09-2007, 05:21 AM	#62
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Dave is the sort of bloke who thinks Central America means Kansas.

08-09-2007, 05:34 AM	#63
Pilsboy5 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sunderland, England Posts: 18	I'd like dave to explain why Britain/The UK is in decline, without recourse to mentioning the loss of The British Empire (which to be honest some people now feel quite embarassed about).

08-09-2007, 07:00 AM	#64
Calilasseia Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Liverpool, UK Posts: 1,072	Especially in the light of the historical facts that Britain wasn't "in decline" as such after those two World Wars, it was recovering from severe body blows, which is an entirely different issue. It took over a generation to overcome that legacy. It would have been surprising if it hadn't. From this paper published by the UK government (it's a House of Commons internal research document made public) we are told that from 1901 to 1991, the UK population increased by 51%. Extrapolating back from a 1991 figure of around 56 million, that gives us a 1901 population of just 27,400,000. Assuming that the figure had reached 29 million by 1914, we find ourselves looking at the World War I casualty figures of 910,000 dead, we lost fully three percent of our entire population in that war. Add in the 1917 Spanish Flu epidemic which claimed another 225,000 lives, and nearly 4% of the entire UK population perished in four years. Anyone requiring more precise data with respect to actual UK population figures can doubtless find the requisite data if they perform a detailed search - after all, a number of key sets of Census data from various years are available online and some can even be searched for genealogical purposes - but I suspect 29 million is, on the basis of the brief survey I conducted, a reasonable total for the 1914 UK population, given the extrapolations from the above official government link. The percentage terms for World War II are lower, because [1] the population had grown beyond 30 million by 1939, and [2] the absolute death toll was lower at 385,000. But the economic cost was far greater - Britain was able to bankroll its participation in World War I independently, whilst in World War II, it had to engage in the Lease-Lend policy and effectively ask the United States to be a loan banker for 40 years. It wasn't until 1986 that Britain paid that off in full. Therefore Britain was not "in decline" as such, it was, in effect, recovering from major blows to its national economic and social health, and working to pay off a loan whose purpose was to minimise the damage in the first place. Alongside all of this, whether or not a significant part of the population got their knickers wet over a 3,000 year old book is utterly fucking trivial. Moreover, unlike the United States, the UK possesses an established church. One that has been a participant in government. Taking note of this, Dave? During the VERY SAME PERIOD YOU CLAIM THAT BRITAIN WAS "IN DECLINE BECAUSE IT TURNED ITS BACK ON GOD", the UK had MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY PERFORMING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ROLES. Look up the distinction between "The Lords Temporal" and "The Lords Spiritual" in the House of Lords, one of our two legislative chambers (we Brits have been nothing if not idiosyncratic about such things!), a part of the official process of government in which Anglican bishops wielded influence. No doubt the "but these weren't true Christians" argument is just around the corner, but then there are many people who declare themselves 'Christian' and claim just as passionate a belief in God, but who don't share the lurid fantasies of the Falwells, Phelpses, Terrys and Swaggarts of this world (for which the human species is doubtless duly grateful). Moreover, our newly acquired Prime Minsiter, Gordon Brown, hails from an ecclesiastical background - his father was a major figure in the Church of Scotland. FACTS, Dave. VERIFIABLE FACTS. Try acquiring some one day. They'll make a world of difference to your output.

08-10-2007, 04:19 AM	#69
LordLeckie Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 74	Ive heard of statements like these before but damn.... its stuning to see one so recent.... im at a loss for words.

08-10-2007, 06:12 AM	#70
Worldtraveller Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,834	So let's see if I can summarize a bit.... Dave has claimed that if one hasn't read the bible, one shouldn't critisize it. Dave claims to have read the bible, but his understanding and selective quoting indicates that he likely hasn't. Dave has demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge about (the list is going to be long....): Geology Physics Archeology Biology Science in general History US government (particularly the Constitution) He has admitted to not having read any significant literature (except from pre-approved YEC sources) on any of these topics, yet continues to display both ignorance and hypocrisy by continually crticizing them. I think that deserves a 'well done'....in an Eddie Izzard kind of way. Cheers, Lane

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.