Psalms used to settle court case in USA.

[jean]

...actually, for a christian the bible is THE book which contains everything that's important to know.

Actually, it's not that long since Catholics weren't supposed to read the Bible in English for themselves at all.

And although they hear plenty of bits read out in Church, they wouldn't necessarily know the order they come in.

And it's not really all that important, is it?

[heliocentric]

they wouldn't necessarily know the order they come in.

And it's not really all that important, is it?

I seem to remember it starts with the words "In the beginning".

[Simon]

Neither Dawkins nor Fraser is actually the best spokesman for their point of view. The fact that Fraser thought he'd scored a cheap debating point shows that he was concentrating on the man, not the argument. His assertion that 'If you asked people who believe in evolution that question [what's the full title of On the Origin of Species] and only two per cent got it right it would be terribly easy for me to say they don't really believe it after all' is frankly ridiculous. I can't help coming to the conclusion that Fraser isn't quite as clever as he thinks he is.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. (We really do need a <doh> picture for some of these comments).

Dawkins has probably learned a valuable lesson, namely that religious people are not above fighting dirty by setting rhetorical traps.

If Dawkins has learned a lesson at all, one hopes it will be that if you pretend to trip people up with silly arguments you shouldn't be surprised if they turn them back uopn you to show just how silly they are.

Dawkins and others like him only have to slip up once and his opponents will pounce. The reverse is not true: apologists for religions of all flavours can go on talking nonsense and dodging the difficult questions beacuse that's what they usually do.

Do you understand the concept of balance and fair comment at all? Because that statement is about as far from it as any I've seen on this subject - so far from it as to be laughable.

Anyone debating any subject is liable to be caught out if their arguments are flawed. "Dawkins and others like him" have slipped up far more than "once", I can assure you! As, of course, have those who argue from the other side. Having such slips pointed out is exactly what they - all - should expect.

[jean]

I seem to remember it starts with the words "In the beginning".

Then by this criterion you wouldn't be a very good Christian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9696000/9696135.stm

It was the New Testament that people couldn't remember the first book of - but it's not Matthew's gospel that starts with the words "In the beginning", it's John's. Which comes in fourth place.

[Miles Coverdale]

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

Which is, O wise one?

Do you understand the concept of balance and fair comment at all? Because that statement is about as far from it as any I've seen on this subject - so far from it as to be laughable.

Indeed I do, but I'm not a journalist, and wasn't aware that I was obliged to abide by them.

Anyone debating any subject is liable to be caught out if their arguments are flawed. "Dawkins and others like him" have slipped up far more than "once", I can assure you! As, of course, have those who argue from the other side. Having such slips pointed out is exactly what they - all - should expect.

Perhaps so, but as I said, Fraser wasn't pointing out that Dawkins' argument was flawed, merely that he couldn't remember the exact, 22-word long, title of a book. Fraser's book only has two words in the title, so is probably easier to remember.

[heliocentric]

Then by this criterion you wouldn't be a very good Christian.

Oops, I thought it was the Old Testament being referred to, and obviously it doesn't really matter what order the books of the New come in, as you say. Equally obviously I'm not claiming to be any kind of christian, although having been brought up with that mythology it still has a certain fascination: as Anthony Kenny puts it, "if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination."

[amateur51]

Oops, I thought it was the Old Testament being referred to, and obviously it doesn't really matter what order the books of the New come in, as you say. Equally obviously I'm not claiming to be any kind of christian, although having been brought up with that mythology it still has a certain fascination: as Anthony Kenny puts it, "if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination."

I'd have no gripes with that.

The incalculable bit, I mean

[MrGongGong]

Oops, I thought it was the Old Testament being referred to, and obviously it doesn't really matter what order the books of the New come in, as you say. Equally obviously I'm not claiming to be any kind of christian, although having been brought up with that mythology it still has a certain fascination: as Anthony Kenny puts it, "if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination."

Surely this is the kind of mythology we need Heliocentric ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAIR1DrT8SY

(as well as , not instead of )

[heliocentric]

Surely this is the kind of mythology we need Heliocentric ?

That goes without saying.

Now I look at it, I find my quote from Anthony Kenny looks rather hyperbolic. I mean, back in prehistory, when people started to feel compelled to find explanations for why the world around them was the way that it was, the activities of supernatural beings behind the scenes must have actually been the most plausible one, given the amount and kind of information available.

[jean]

I became quite curious about how the question was phrased, and I found the whole questionnaire here.

Q23. What is the first book of the NEW Testament?

Matthew 35%
Genesis 19%
Acts of the Apostles 3%
Psalms 3%
Don’t know 39%
Prefer not to say 1%

With that amount of prompting, I'm a bit more surprised than I was before that so many didn't know. And I love that 1%.

There are larger questions here I think about what Christianity actually is, and how far you're allowed to self-identify.

[MrGongGong]

There are larger questions here I think about what Christianity actually is, and how far you're allowed to self-identify.

Indeed

If, as was suggested by Fraser, one can simply "self-identify" as a "christian" (or should that be Christian ?) without believing in what are supposed to be the basic tenets of Christianity then it becomes more than a little ridiculous.

"Diabolists in the CofE" ???

I guess there must be a few "theological grey areas" ????

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

"Prefer not to say"????!!!!

[heliocentric]

"Prefer not to say"????!!!!

Maybe those were the monks and nuns who'd taken a vow of silence.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Maybe those were the monks and nuns who'd taken a vow of silence.

[Magnificat]

Why at a terribly unwise judge. Basing an "opinion of this court" directly from a statment in Psalms, he is ideologically aligning himself (and the court) with a book of the Hebrew/Christian bible, and against the plaintiff. His stance is supposed to be objective and non-partisan.

In short, he's saying that non-believers must be fools because I'm with the believers.

Boilk

On the contrary: The judge knows that the atheist cannot have a holy day because he is an unbeliever so he uses the holy book ( the Old Testament) of the Christian and Jew to look for a way of treating him as fairly as possible and finds a neat solution in the Book of Psalms. The atheist's problem is not that the judge has been subjective in his judgement but will be getting the State to declare April 1st a public holiday or persuading his employer to give him the day off!!

VCC