Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Richard Dawkins pronounces Year Zero

There is an article in yesterday’s Irish Times which merits a brief mention. It is quoted here in its entirety:
FREEDOM OF expression and of religion “should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others”, according to the Dublin Declaration on Secularism and the Place of Religion in Public Life, adopted unanimously at the World Atheist Convention yesterday.

The declaration also states that “the sovereignty of the State is derived from the people and not from any God or gods”.

Speaking to The Irish Times yesterday, well-known atheist Prof Richard Dawkins said the Irish Constitution should be reformed to “remove all influence of the Roman Catholic Church and all other churches . . . incorporating tolerance for all religions”.

Referring to the oath that must be taken by Irish presidents and judges, he said they might as well take an oath “to Zeus or Thor” as to God.

He “rejoiced” at the growth of secularism in Ireland and when he read the papers “about the pathetically diminished number of priests”.

He hoped the churches would “wither away”, describing the Catholic Church as “an evil institution . . . by far the worst where the churches are concerned”.

The three-day convention also launched Atheists Alliance International, a newly restructured umbrella group for atheists worldwide, whose first chairwoman is Tanya Smith of the Atheist Foundation of Australia.

Keynote speakers included Labour Senator Ivana Bacik, American science blogger PZ Myers and Iranian activist Maryam Namazie, of the British Council of Ex-Muslims.

Other speakers included Prof Dawkins, Danish neurobiologist Lone Frank and Indian author Aroup Chaterjee.

Organised by Atheist Ireland, the convention was attended by 350 delegates, many of them Irish, with a preponderance of young people in their 20s.

On education, the Dublin declaration says State education should be secular and “children should be taught about the diversity of religious and no-religious beliefs in an objective manner, with no faith formation in school hours”.

Children should also “be educated in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge. Science should be taught free from religious interference.”

It says “freedom of conscience, religion and belief are private and unlimited” and that all blasphemy laws should be repealed. “There should be no right ‘not to be offended’ in law.”

Under the heading “Secular Democracy” it says: “The only reference in the Constitution to religion should be an affirmation that the State is secular.”

Public policy “should be formed by applying reason, not religious faith, to evidence” and “the State should be strictly neutral in matters of religion, and its absence, favouring none and discriminating against none”.

Religions, it says “should have no special financial consideration in public life, such as tax-free status for religious activities, or grants to promote religion or run faith schools” and that “membership of a religion should not be a basis for appointing a person to any State position”.

Where law is concerned it says “there should be one secular law for all, democratically decided and evenly enforced, with no jurisdiction for religious courts to settle civil matters or family disputes”.
People like Richard Dawkins have occasionally risen to rule nations, and the horrific consequences of their intolerance of religious expression and aggressive assertions of atheism are matter of historical record. It is a curious blindness which fails to perceive that it is the very presence of the Church that ensures the ‘tolerance for all religions’. What tolerance can Dawkins’ atheism possibly manifest when it believes the Roman Catholic Church to be ‘an evil institution’? Is not the use of such extremist inflammatory language designed to stoke the very intolerance they profess to abhor?

The declaration states that ‘the sovereignty of the State is derived from the people and not from any God or gods’. What happens when the majority of the people believe the sovereignty of the state to be derived from God?

While we must thank God that Dr Dawkins has not risen to be prime minister, this declaration gives an insight into how he will govern the New College of the Humanities in association with his fellow atheists. What an enlightened bastion of the liberal arts that is looking to be.

No Economics*, no Classics, no Languages, no Performing Arts, no Theology – indeed, no Religion at all: a college of the humanities which offers only one humanity, all taught by devout atheists. What an educational innovation. Still, at least they embrace complementary medicine*.

*UPDATE 18.46 7 June 2011
They must be reading. They have hastily addded Economics to the curriculum and expunged completely their reference to 'complementary therapies' for students. Fortunately, His Grace was not alone in witnessing this.

271 Comments:

Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

Has anyone seen Mr Dawkins and Mr Huhne in the same room at the same time? Such ardent zealotary must be rare!

DtP

WV: jeupl - Saturday nights at the synagogue; be there or be square.

7 June 2011 at 09:37  
Anonymous tb said...

"It is a curious blindness which fails to perceive that it is the very presence of the Church that ensures the ‘tolerance for all religions’."

Oh, I must be mistaken about the long inglorious history of people from different religions killing each other..

7 June 2011 at 09:40  
Anonymous Gareth said...

If Dawkins really believed his own words, he would be calling for all atheists to take up arms against their evil neighbours, purging the world of their pernicious beliefs and practises and ushering in a new era of utopia.

7 June 2011 at 09:51  
Anonymous Pelegrino said...

Well, now. It seems as though Dawkins has come up with a device to put his claim to the title of "Professor" beyond question - although I'm sure that this College can't have been contrived for the purpose. Can it?

7 June 2011 at 09:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I am sure that if the electorate democratically decides that there should be one religious law for all and enforced evenly with no jurisdiction for secular courts to settle civil matters or family disputes – the atheists, being good democracts, will accept that.

7 June 2011 at 10:08  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "The declaration states that ‘the sovereignty of the State is derived from the people and not from any God or gods’. What happens when the majority of the people believe the sovereignty of the state to be derived from God?"

In the case of the second sentence, the result is an Islamic State if the population/belief projections of various people here are to be believed. I don't want that and I bet most people here do not either, I'd much rather a secular State was in place now to steer us along a route more like Turkey's.

The first sentence is interesting. What does it mean? If it is about who ultimately makes law i.e. its political meaning then I reckon most people in the UK today believe that it is a correct statement, notwithstanding the relationship with the EU. Do religious people here really have a sort of Hobbesian view of it? How hideous if so.

7 June 2011 at 10:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO said:

‘I'd much rather a secular State was in place now to steer us along a route more like Turkey's.’

Prime Minister Erdogan's Islamist party has been able to gain control of both the presidency and the seat of prime minister. They also gained a large majority in the parliament. After they win the elections on June 12, they are set to pass a bill authorizing them to literally rewrite the Turkish Constitution. This will give them far greater control over both the judiciary and the military, the two entities that have historically served as the greatest check against an Islamist takeover of government. Not surprisingly then, through two manufactured conspiracies, the ruling AK party has effectively decapitated the secularist leadership of the Turkish military, arresting nearly 200 top military officials. Instead of a military coup to remove the Islamist party, the Islamist AK party has successfully taken over the military. And they were masterfully successful.

Erdogan has also filled the courts with his own judges. Over 70 percent of the police are also Islamists. And finally, the Islamists have gone after the media. Erdogan's son now runs one outlet, while a second company was hit with a $2.3 billion fine. There are more Turkish journalists in prison than any other nation in the world.

7 June 2011 at 10:22  
Anonymous graham wood said...

"What tolerance can Dawkins’ atheism possibly manifest when it believes the Roman Catholic Church to be ‘an evil institution’? "

It does not take much by way of discernment for Dawkins to speak the truth in this instance and to express the truth concerning the claims of the RC 'church' as eseentially "evil" .

Any reasonably informed Christian on basic biblical truth should be able to endorse wuch a statement.
There is no need to read off the litany of errors of the RC church (although its orthodoxy on the Person of Christ is officially impeccable).
It is certainly "evil" to assert an authority over Christians which usurps that of Christ himself.
It is certainly "evil" to assert that 'outside the church (RC system) there is no salvation -
i.e. the arrogant claim "extra ecclesiam".
Thus she interposes the RC institution, and the claims of a succession of 'popes'as the "vicar of Christ', between Christ and the believer.

But the Bible is clear :
"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

On this one point therefore Dawkins can be vindicated.

7 June 2011 at 10:29  
Anonymous Papal Bull said...

These Irish atheists - are they catholic atheists or protestant atheists?

I'll get me cassock

7 June 2011 at 10:32  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

If there was ever war between the Islamic States and the West you would find atheists fighting and dying for amongst other things, the defence of the right of people to practice the religion their choice.

7 June 2011 at 10:36  
Blogger len said...

It will come,( I am sure )as a total surprise to the Atheists that they(the Atheists) have cleared the way for the birth an Islamic controlled State.
The Atheists in their search for 'freedom from the shackles of religion' and the abolishment of Biblical Christianity have unwittingly sown the seeds of their own demise.
As Atheists will not listen to reason or Biblical truth all Christians can do is watch the scene unfolding with concern,astonishment, and a growing sense of despair.
I think things will have to get a lot worse before any atheists wake up as to what is what is actually happening.
As one religion(Christianity is pushed back, another(Islam, and corrupted forms of Christianity) will advance.

7 June 2011 at 10:37  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Turkey's essentially having a drawn out coup now. Democracies are pretty stable but they're not invulnerable.

7 June 2011 at 10:42  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"It will come,( I am sure )as a total surprise to the Atheists that they(the Atheists) have cleared the way for the birth an Islamic controlled State."

Suddenly, we seem to have had a awful lot of power in the last two or hundred years or so. Nothing to do with people simply becoming uninterested over time in Christianity and its institutionalised constraints and poor record then?

7 June 2011 at 10:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

The point Mr Len is making is that Judaeo-Christianity has by and large stood this country well for a thousand years.

Don't you read documents such as Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights?

Once you terminate Judaeo-Christianity - you cannot have a vacuum - that vacuum may at first be filled by 'Human Rights' but that in turn will go sour. For example, the superinjunctions are loved by the elite?

Why?

Because they conceal their activities. More secrecy eqautes with more power for the elite.

At some point we will have a totalitarian government.

7 June 2011 at 10:57  
Anonymous Boris said...

Reading this article and the comment on launching the "Atheists Alliance International" reminded me of the excellent South Park Episode "Go God Go" where in the future - where Richard Dawkins' ideas have taken hold - a world war is being fought between the Unified Atheist League (UAL), the United Atheist Alliance (UAA) and the Allied Atheist Allegiance (AAA). So it starts in Ireland... how appropriate.

7 June 2011 at 10:58  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

So, the New College of Humanities is asking double the going rate to provide students with a restricted and impoverished curriculum, delivered by a small group of egomaniac self-publicising academics, self-selected for their near-identical worldviews and self-defined as an elite? Oh, and access to the same facilities which University of London students are only paying £9000 for...

It's just as well they don't teach economics.

7 June 2011 at 11:04  
Anonymous Tony B said...

blimey and cor luv a duck, I find I agree completely with D Singh at 10:57. Have I slipped into an alternate universe?

7 June 2011 at 11:09  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Thank you for translating, D Singh, what would I do without you? You know, we also had feudalism for hundreds of years and women have only had the vote for less than a hundred. Times change and people want different things despite people like you trying to stand in the way in order to preserve your own specialist interests.

7 June 2011 at 11:12  
Anonymous Wesley Crusher said...

Your Grace,

D Singh and Len have beat me to it, but they are correct; a secular state would lead to a dictatorship and the inveitable backlash against it. It would be another civil war.

7 June 2011 at 11:19  
Anonymous Voyager said...

“the sovereignty of the State is derived from the people

Which People ? The ones when the State was first conceived ie. Romulus and Remus ? Or does he mean SPQR ? Or does he mean Julius Caesar's era ? Or does he mean Caesar Augustus ? Constantine ?

Which People in which era defines the sovereignty of The State ?

Does he understand what Hegel meant when he said <i. The Individual is transient: The State is permanent" ?

I find Dawkins to be a man of low intellect who really should spend his time learning about political philosophy before uttering such mechanistic bilge

7 June 2011 at 11:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

You still don't get it do you.

The feudal system was run by the elite - it took the brave people of these islands on the field of Runnymede to bring the elite to heel.

Their forefathers did it again in the 17th century:

King James in a great rage said to Lord Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke:

'Then I am to be under the law - which is treason to affirm.'

Coke: 'Thus wrote Bracton, 'The King is under no man, save under God and the law.''

Lord Denning said this about that episode:

'Those words of Bracton, quoted by Coke, 'The King is under God and the law,' insists that the executive power [the Government] was under law... If we forget these principles, where shall we finish? You have only to look to the totalitarian systems of government to see what happens. The society is primary, not the person. The citizen exists for the State, not the State for the citizen. The rulers are not under God and the law. They are a law unto themselves.'

If we say there is no God's law - then the Government is free to become totalitarian. For on what basis can we resist?

Our theories? But the Governmnet has its own theories. On what basis would our theories be superior - unless they appealed to an objective code given by revelation [revealed].

7 June 2011 at 11:26  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Len. seeing as there is no form of collective that encompasses atheists en bloc, how you can, make the pronouncement that 'A'theists have brought on the surge of Islamic ascendency at the expense of Christian decline.

Islam seeks to subjugate or eliminate all religions apart from itself. It appears to me that your world view is very myopic if you can't see further than that. If Christianity can't stand on its own feet that's its own fault.

Branding all people collectively, who do not profess any supernatural faith does not make them as individuals, responsible for the problems of which you describe.

Why I ask, do Christians of all denominations not take it upon themselves to openly defy the Muslim view (not sure about the Jews) that your God on Earth was only a prophet. If I were a Christian I am sure, this would cause me serious offence to have that insult dangling in my face like a rotting fish.

So what I say - not my problem Ducky.

7 June 2011 at 11:30  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Just finished reading the excellent Narnia Chronicles with my son. Read this in "The Last Battle". Surmises the NuAtheists completely:

"'You see,' said Aslan, 'they will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.'"

If you haven't read the Narnia chronicles before (or for a long time) can I commend them. More wisdom & theology than a decade of typical sermons or lectures.

7 June 2011 at 11:38  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Me Singh

The feudal system was run by the elite - it took the brave people of these islands on the field of Runnymede to bring the elite to heel

TommyRot. The Barons were in dispute with the King - there were and still are the elite (land owners) - this had bugger all to do with 'the people' at the time.

7 June 2011 at 11:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

It may not be your problem just yet 'Ducky'.

Be patient. Give it sometime.


One thing is for sure - you atheists cannot have a vacuum in society.

Take your pick (and you also choose for those not yet born): Christianity or Islam.

And if you say 'No thanks, pal'. Then you must terminate religious folk.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

7 June 2011 at 11:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Dreadnaught

Are you stupid as well?

Article 29 Magna Carta:

29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

That right is given to us all - on both sides of the Atlantic - the right of due process.

It is now weakened by your Best Friends in the EU - the European Arrest Warrant.

Once you're collared 'No ifs or Buts off to jail you go.'

Judaeo-Christian democracy - its over - welcome to the 'new' totalitarianism.

7 June 2011 at 11:45  
Blogger gresham58 said...

D Singh
I don't see what the Bill of Rights or Magna Carta have to do with JC ethics, in fact I'd say they are the point were Human Rights start to trump Old and New Testament Laws. The idea that an atheist state would somehow ditch all of the ethical conventions evolved over a thousand years and leave a vacuum to be filled by ?? is absurd if you removed all of the privileges held by the church in this country the vast majority of the population would not notice the difference.
Your Grace I can’t fathom out the reference to Complementary Medicine can you clarify?

7 June 2011 at 11:52  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned [...]"

Weren't that many of those around at the time.

7 June 2011 at 11:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

gresham58


'is absurd if you removed all of the privileges held by the church in this country the vast majority of the population would not notice the difference.'

They would not notice the difference because of what happened in the Civil War.

Have you not read your country's history?

The CofE was the 'civil service': 'No Bishop, No King!'

After the Civil War the CofE's power gardually degraded - today the reach of its 'power' extends to a few muffled words by a bloke who looks like an extra in Gladiator.

7 June 2011 at 11:58  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"If we say there is no God's law - then the Government is free to become totalitarian."

D Singh. You still don't get it either. You assert a concept and then pretend it is universal and absolute for expediency. Most people have realised the truth. You can be as flowery and poetic as you like but the game is up.

7 June 2011 at 12:02  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

are you stupid as well?

Hey don't be so hard on yourself.

7 June 2011 at 12:04  
Anonymous Len's former lodger said...

gresham58- actually there would be a difference-

1.Half of the C of E churches would finally close, as they would no longer be under an obligation to have a parish church in every part of England, thus solving the financial crisis of the Church.

2. The C of E would fall apart into its liberal catholic and evangelical parts.

3. People who might go to a C of E church at Christmas (possibly easter), but who want to get married , baptise their young and have a funeral in a C of E church ("cultural Anglicans?)could be told to 'sod off' as if they really believed any of it, then they would be in Church every sunday.

4. The C of E could dust itself down and get on with the real work of the real supreme gov- i.e Jesus Christ.

7 June 2011 at 12:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

gresham58

'I don't see what the Bill of Rights or Magna Carta have to do with JC ethics, in fact I'd say they are the point were Human Rights start to trump Old and New Testament Laws.'

Yeah, prisoners' voting rights.

7 June 2011 at 12:06  
Anonymous Sean Robsville said...

What tolerance can Dawkins’ atheism possibly manifest when it believes the Roman Catholic Church to be ‘an evil institution’??

...but some institutions are more evil than others.

7 June 2011 at 12:08  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Danjo- Do you not also assert a concept[Secular State] and then pretend it is universal and absolute for expediency ?

7 June 2011 at 12:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawkins is one of the biggest, most successful boobs on earth. He had one idea - the selfish gene and plied for all its worth. I read the trash he spouted in The Blind Watchmaker, apparently the Rev Paley was wrong in thinking when he found a watch that it was designed by an intelligence. Now I ask anyone here, if you found an IPad or lets be easier on the fools a mousetrap, would you mind ratiocinate in this fashion - I wonder how many generations it took natural selection to fashion this artifact. Of course not, but this is how that Professor for Public Understanding of Science expects us to think, suspend common sense and let him pour bilge in its place. There is also the little matter of his tedious computer simulations, all very entertaining but not one of which can turn into a worm let alone a butterfly. The worship of Darwin, of which Dawkins is a beneficiary is a marker for the decline of British science. The library shelves are groaning with Darwinia, there must have been at least a hundred books on various aspects of that fraud's life published in the last four to five years, - his relationship with daughter, the various journeys he undertook, his views on racism etc. I suspect that he is a popular subject due largely to his atheism and the fact that plain English is enough to understand his work. In the meantime, far greater scientists and religious men such as Maxwell, Faraday and Babbage, have to make do with a book apiece or sometimes none. Is it any wonder then, that British science is in the doldrums, devoid of any applications in technology and pretending that the imaginings of Hawkings is worth a hill of beans

Ivan

7 June 2011 at 12:09  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Danjo- Do you not also assert a concept[Secular State] and then pretend it is universal and absolute for expediency ?"

?? No of course not. That's a very strange thing to say.

7 June 2011 at 12:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No. DanJo's gone Turkish.

7 June 2011 at 12:13  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "I read the trash he spouted in The Blind Watchmaker, apparently the Rev Paley was wrong in thinking when he found a watch that it was designed by an intelligence."

Lol. Oh dear.

Next, someone will say that the theory of evolution by natural selection says we are descended from monkeys. I have someone in mind who has already said that too. ;)

7 June 2011 at 12:14  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Can anyone tell me how this secular state would work? It looks like some simply want to get rid of the C of E as the official Church, others seem to want to reshape society as his Grace's says from 'year one'. Very chilling if true.

Danjo's role model of Turkey is interesting because at the first sign of any religious party getting into power, there used to be a military coup in that country. So are secularists democrats or not ?

7 June 2011 at 12:15  
Anonymous DeanRoberts.Net said...

I really cant stand this man. Anything to get fame and publicity. And rightly put Your Grace, praise God that he hasn't risen to political power.

http://deanroberts.net

7 June 2011 at 12:16  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Danjo, so does that mean that the vision of the secular state only extends to the UK and if so why this country in particular?

7 June 2011 at 12:17  
Blogger gresham58 said...

Ivan
A mouse trap cannot replicate itself and therefore cannot evolve.
The whole point of evolution is that living do replicate themselves and when they do errors can occur if the error gives an advantage it will stay in the population if it gives a disadvantage it will die out.

7 June 2011 at 12:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

At 12.14

'Lol. Oh dear.'

That is a clear example why atheism both the Nazi and communist varieties should be feared:

It mocks reason.

7 June 2011 at 12:21  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

He had one idea - the selfish gene...

Not quite so Ivan. Dawkins did write and produce a book by that name on the topic, but the principal theory of the selfish gene came from George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection

7 June 2011 at 12:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

gresham58

'if it gives a disadvantage it will die out.'

No it won't: the disabled.

But I can understand why you atheists advocate euthanasia: humans are a mere collection of cells.

No wonder people call you Nazis.

7 June 2011 at 12:24  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Danjo, so does that mean that the vision of the secular state only extends to the UK and if so why this country in particular?"

Yes. Why not?

Is this going to be yet another one of those times where I become Everyman holding whatever opposing ideas someone wants to argue against? I'll make sure I don't delete any comments to fix spelling mistakes if so.

7 June 2011 at 12:26  
Anonymous Jon said...

The CoE is, in my view, a very successful innoculation programme against faith. Biblical stories are placed on a par with Grimm's fairy tales in the church schools I attended.

Establishment is the worst thing that could have happened to Protestantism in this country - and leaves it fighting other denominations and faiths with one hand tied behind its back.

Having said that, I think that the Atheist Alliance is a straw man here - since the CoE has the Queen rather than Jesus as it's head, it already has an interlocutor! And the Coe in practice tolerates diversity and doesn't enforce conformism. Incidentally, try seeing what would happen if it did... Cake or death!!

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

What's more, the Christian Church spread successfully in a Roman empire dominated by ancestor worship and paganism. Why should it not do so again in a UK committed to freedom of relgious expression under an atheist prime minister with a secular code whose power derived from popular consent? The French republic has been secular for some time now, and isn't totalitarian. Stop being so dramatic!

7 June 2011 at 12:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

Answer the question: 'why this country in particular?"

7 June 2011 at 12:28  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, your criticism (No Economics etc) of the courses offered by New College may not be correct and your communicant suggests checking this link and an edit of commentary to date.

Link: http://www.nchum.org/support-network

See also in http://www.nchum.org/history courses on the Birth of Western Christendom 300-1215AD and the Birth of Christian Europe (now there's an admission).


And: http://www.nchum.org/philosophy

7 June 2011 at 12:29  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "But I can understand why you atheists advocate euthanasia: humans are a mere collection of cells."

Does anyone, anyone at all, actually believe that? As a statement in an argument, it's beyond reductionist. It's almost beyond ridicule. But not quite. Lol.

7 June 2011 at 12:30  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

"Is this going to be yet another one of those times where I become Everyman holding whatever opposing ideas someone wants to argue against? I'll make sure I don't delete any comments to fix spelling mistakes if so."

Danjo- speaking for myself the answer to that is no.

7 June 2011 at 12:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

Yes; Mr Davis yesterday:

'The human values ... are biologically driven.'

7 June 2011 at 12:35  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The CoE is, in my view, a very successful innoculation programme against faith. Biblical stories are placed on a par with Grimm's fairy tales in the church schools I attended

You would expect that from an Erastian Church though wouldn't you ?

It was conceived to isolate religious zeal for social peace. The Civil War disestablished the Church of England and put the Nonconformists in power - the Restoration brought Edward Hyde to restore the Church of England and use the Test and corporation Acts to isolate those not in conformity with the social peace the post-Civil War Settlement desired.

The Catholics had to be isolated to prevent the return of Church lands from the landowning aristocracy and the Nonconformists had to be isolated to prevent Upheaval.......they eventually acquired their political power through Commerce and Industrialisation

The Church of England is not a religious experience but a social convention which suits English small-mindedness and lethargy

7 June 2011 at 12:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

And you as well DanJo yesterday with your emotional determinism:

'So, when I see (say) an injustice and I have an emotional response it empowers my moral reasoning.'

The Nazis clearly thought in the same way.

7 June 2011 at 12:38  
Anonymous Delroy Cleeves said...

all we need now is for the aliens to start posting and for Graham Davies to appear and tell us what a paradise a secular state would be and that we are all numpties for believing in God. And of course my old favourites the 'viking and dodo' double act.

7 June 2011 at 12:42  
Blogger gresham58 said...

D Singh
As an atheist I advocate euthanasia for myself, if life should become intolerable, but would never force it upon another.
What the Nazis did was mass murder in the name of eugenics rather a different matter.

7 June 2011 at 12:44  
Anonymous andre duchamp said...

Dawkins is spot on with this - the sooner we sweep away the old religions the better for humanity. Morals and ethics come from us as humans and we don't need no god to tell us them. Right?

7 June 2011 at 12:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As an atheist I advocate euthanasia for myself"

or suicide as its called!

7 June 2011 at 12:45  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Voyager @ 12.36 said, 'The Church of England is not a religious experience but a social convention which suits English small-mindedness and lethargy'.

You should get out more, comrade.

Admittedly the Anglican Communion is only 80m strong vs Othodox 350m and Catholic more than 1bn, but Anglicans are widely spread throughout the former British Empire. No small-minded lethargy there.

7 June 2011 at 12:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duchampy is right - we nazis count on this
'Dawkins is spot on with this - the sooner we sweep away the old religions the better for humanity. Morals and ethics come from us as humans and we don't need no god to tell us them. Right?'

7 June 2011 at 12:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

gresham58

‘As an atheist I advocate euthanasia for myself, if life should become intolerable, but would never force it upon another.’

But it does not stop there as you very well know. Think about the desperate chap wanting to get his hands on the inheritance and starts telling granddad he’s a burden.

7 June 2011 at 12:52  
Anonymous Jim Atherstone said...

It would seem Danjo cannot even explain WHY he wants to subject us all to an atheist dictator state and simply says 'why not?'. What kind of rational liberal is this man? Afraid to justify his own belief and argument automatically means that he is WRONG to take us back to the dark days of Soviet Russia.

7 June 2011 at 12:56  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I responded to that in the thread, D Singh.

Lord L: "Danjo- speaking for myself the answer to that is no."

In that case, I'll explain why I personally advocate a secular State for the UK. We're have a history of liberalism, at least in modern times, on which a secular State sits fairly comfortably. We have an established religion in which only a small minority of people participate. We have an increasingly diverse population, some of whom hold different religious views. And we have a seemingly flaky means of arbitrating between specialist interests. I can see trouble ahead. And I think a secular State will help.

7 June 2011 at 13:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

As you very well know the other religions have repeatedly said they support Christianity.

The reason is obvious: if Christianity falls then their religions fall and what a secular state will have done is silence millions of religious folk.

You cannot run a functional state by disenfranchising millions of your own citizens. That will lead to civil conflict.

7 June 2011 at 13:06  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I see 'Jim Atherstone' is assigning views to me which I don't hold. What a surprise, I'm Everyman again! Some of these poor saps must be really desperate to rant at someone.

7 June 2011 at 13:07  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "The reason is obvious: if Christianity falls then their religions fall and what a secular state will have done is silence millions of religious folk."

Like our current State with its established religion wich silences the overwhelming majority of us who aren't regular CofE attendees? Or is there a problem with your reasoning in there somewhere?

7 June 2011 at 13:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Further, DanJO

'on which a secular State sits fairly comfortably.'

You haven't proved it is secular.

Do you have a £1 coin?

Show it?

What is engraved on its rim?

7 June 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

'Like our current State with its established religion wich silences the overwhelming majority of us who aren't regular CofE attendees?'

Show me the case law which silences you?

I can present a dozen cases civil and criminal which have attempted to silence the Christian faith.

7 June 2011 at 13:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

Mr Singh,

It is a very dangerous thing to ask DanJ0 about his rim.

7 June 2011 at 13:13  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "DanJO Yes; Mr Davis yesterday: 'The human values ... are biologically driven.'"

And that actually means "humans are a mere collection of cells" to you, does it? Oh dear.

D Singh, as a species we're bloody marvellous. Every single one of us is the result of the whole of time and space coming together to form us. We capable of the most amazing things. The art we produce! The way we use science to tease out some knowledge of the way our reality works! Our ideas and thoughts and dreams! A mere collection of cells? You moron.

7 June 2011 at 13:15  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "I can present a dozen cases civil and criminal which have attempted to silence the Christian faith."

Which show what exactly?

7 June 2011 at 13:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

'Every single one of us is the result of the whole of time and space coming together to form us.'

So then you have made a 'scientific' discovery that has eluded mankind: the attribution of intelligence to the dimensions of space and time?

I know, I know your emotions have determined your opinion.

7 June 2011 at 13:20  
Blogger len said...

I believe God is giving man a last chance to set up a secular 'Utopia'because man (Atheists) will not listen to his warnings.
Like a child who will not be 'told what to do'Atheists insist of having their own way regardless of the dangers.The tragedy is that many innocent people will be draw into this Atheistic experiment and suffer the consequences.
All Christians will be able to do ultimately is to stand at the sidelines and' snatch people from the fire', IF they will listen to the voice of reason(the Gospel.)

7 June 2011 at 13:21  
Blogger gresham58 said...

"As an atheist I advocate euthanasia for myself"

or suicide as its called!

I was thinking it would be done as an act of compassion by someone else does that count as suicide?

7 June 2011 at 13:22  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "You haven't proved it is secular."

D Singh, it becomes very tedious dealing with your nonsense. I am advocating a secular State as I do regularly. Our current State is polluted with the detritus of Christianity and we have a fairly crap legal legacy from New Labour at the moment.

7 June 2011 at 13:23  
Anonymous 9th Cyber-Legion said...

"as a species we're bloody marvellous. Every single one of us is the result of the whole of time and space coming together to form us. We capable of the most amazing things. The art we produce! The way we use science to tease out some knowledge of the way our reality works! Our ideas and thoughts and dreams! "

YOUR EMOTIONS MAKE YOU WEAK AND FALLIABLE. YOUR BODIES AND WEAK AND YOU CAN DIE. THE LOGICAL CHOICE IS TO JOIN THE PERFECTION OF THE MACHINE AND BE UPGRADED. THEN YOU SHALL BE PERFECT.

7 June 2011 at 13:28  
Anonymous 9th Cyber-Legion said...

PS- WE ARE THE ULTIMATE SECULAR STATE- GRAHAM DAVIES WOULD BE PROUD TO BE A CYBER-MAN!

7 June 2011 at 13:29  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

9th Cyber-Legion, perhaps you should start with amoebas first and move on to 'mere collections of cells' afterwards. D Singh, off you go.

7 June 2011 at 13:32  
Blogger len said...

Peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war; new foes arise,
Threatening to bind our souls with secular chains:
Help us to save free conscience from the paw
Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw."
(John Milton)

7 June 2011 at 13:35  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "All Christians will be able to do ultimately is to stand at the sidelines and' snatch people from the fire'"

Well, it makes a refreshing change that it's that way around now. Phew.

7 June 2011 at 13:35  
Anonymous It's called Love said...

@DanJ0: "I know, I know your emotions have determined your opinion."

7 June 2011 at 13:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dajo Dsingh siad this

'gresham58

'if it gives a disadvantage it will die out.'

'No it won't: the disabled.

'But I can understand why you atheists advocate euthanasia: humans are a mere collection of cells.

No wonder people call you Nazis.'

So he wasn't saying that they are a colection of cells but explaing why you and davis say they are driven by determinism.

7 June 2011 at 13:40  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Atheism is a luxury purchased by the rich (and, yes, by any objective measure those who live in the West are rich.) Men sacrifice meaning in order to acquire moral freedom, and then narcotize their meaninglessness existence with bread and circuses. The man who has sufficient money and time and freedom to indulge his desires can ignore the reality of his impending death - at least for a time.

But everything changes if the money goes away. It's one thing to believe in nothing when there is food on the table and a plethora of women in the bed. It's another thing entirely when food is scarce, and the body shivers from exposure. Suffering has a way of focusing the mind on meaninglessness. The man who believes in God has a floor beneath his feet at all times. The atheist dangles over the abyss. He looks down and sees only blackness. Men who believe nothing become terrified when they are finally confronted with the implications of their own nothingness.

Such men will mask their fear with anger, and they will look for something to redress that anger. Devoid of the narcotic of money, they will look for something to fill that meaningless void. Since they believe in nothing to begin with, they will become fodder for any clever man who promises to restore them to their former prosperity. And what restraints will their unbelief impose on the clever man? This is the danger in the mass secularization of the population. It is like the man cleansed of a demon - swept clean and put in order. And then the demon returns with others and the fate of the man is sevenfold worse than before.

All that is required is for the prosperity to run out. And believe it - the prosperity is running out. The Age of the West is coming to a close. In their rage, those who were once rich (and yet feel entitled to that wealth) will turn their anger outward. You will see the emergence of a New Order. The government you thought you had will disappear. It's all happened before, and it will happen again.

carl

7 June 2011 at 13:42  
Anonymous Len's former Lodger said...

Len- perhaps the secular state is the means to which God will bring revival to his Church and bring forth the beast of babylon? If so then perhaps we should welcome this development.

7 June 2011 at 13:46  
Anonymous IanCad said...

"Experience holds a dear school, but a fool will learn by none other" -- Ben Franklin.

The French revolution, Soviet Russia, China under Mao, Pol Pot's Cambodia. All modern states holding Atheism as their creed. Millions dead. No pity. We know best. We are rational. We are far too smart to believe in a Creator. Too bad we were'nt there when it started.
Rationalism, Determinism, Secularism. Mustn't forget a dollop of Utilitarianism either.
Oh, how rosy things would be today!

7 June 2011 at 13:48  
Anonymous Len's former Lodger said...

Is Carol Jacobs a preacher? Well written,Biblical and inspired by God. If he is not,let us pray that God will call him into the ministry of the Church...

7 June 2011 at 13:49  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Remember that atheism and so-called "Humanism" is an ideology like any other, and here, we see that despite a few thin claims, it will tolerate no rivals. "If Dawkins really believed his own words, he would be calling for all atheists to take up arms against their evil neighbours, purging the world of their pernicious beliefs and practises and ushering in a new era of utopia" (Gareth) - just give him time. Not long now before the present Soft Stalinism gets harder.

7 June 2011 at 13:51  
Anonymous Ms A Theist said...

What is wrong with Dawkins and his ideal for a secular world? I think he has the mark of a visionary, for he will drag us out of the dark ages and into the light of reason and rational thought. I think he would make a good first president of a united global secular government. What a wonderful prospect that would be.

7 June 2011 at 13:52  
Anonymous Secular Jim said...

The problem with most of the people of this site is that they are small minded and unable to see what needs to be done in order for humanity to survive. I think Danjo is nodding in the right direction, when he calls for england to be secular in order to juggle the various parts of society for the greater good, but I would go further and suggest that it would be a good template for the rest of the world. Also we don't need religion anymore and christianity, islam and the rest will go the way of the ancient babylonians, egyptians and greeks and in the future people will look upon the modern religions and view them in the same way- as good legends and fairy tales, with the occasional bollywood/hollywood blockbuster.

7 June 2011 at 13:56  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Is Carol Jacobs a preacher?

I are a Engineer. ;)

carl

7 June 2011 at 14:03  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "So he wasn't saying that they are a colection of cells but explaing why you and davis say they are driven by determinism."

No, he pulled a snippet out of its context, as he often does, and in this case claimed we atheists think humans are 'a mere collection of cells' because of it. It's reductionist nonsense and creates a caricature that would be unrecognisable if he didn't label it as us.

7 June 2011 at 14:05  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

CJ says

But everything changes if the money goes away.. -

Like the Churches are not the repositories of vast wealth! - come off it Carl this applies to virtually everyone and everything of the planet.

7 June 2011 at 14:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

7 June 2011 at 14:14  
Blogger gresham58 said...

"The French revolution, Soviet Russia, China under Mao, Pol Pot's Cambodia. All modern states holding Atheism as their creed."
No atheism wasn't their creed their creeds were Stalinism, Maoism and other ism's atheism wasn't their driving force only a by product, in fact they sum up why this debate is ultimately sterile. Atheism isn't a creed or religion it is just a rejection of the fables that men had to make up to understand a frightening and hostile world. When atheists want a totally secular government it is because we don't want any aspect of our lives, from Sunday shopping to abortion, to be regulated by reference to holy books of any sect. If you disapprove of abortion don't have one but don't tell me that I can't. You don't want to buy alcohol on a Sunday fine by me but don't impose your rules on me.
I live in a world of the Large Hadron Collider, The Hubble Space Telescope and The Human Genome Project, the stories that they tell are far more exciting and marvelous then any in the Koran Torah or Bible and what is even better they are demonstrably TRUE.

7 June 2011 at 14:16  
Anonymous Ambassador of the Imperial Alpha Draconian Court said...

"all we need now is for the aliens to start posting and for Graham Davies to appear and tell us what a paradise a secular state would be and that we are all numpties for believing in God. And of course my old favourites the 'viking and dodo' double act".

If the glorious Alpha Draconian Empire were ever to annex your planet, we would allow you to keep your sky gods. The atheists can also keep their gods as well.

7 June 2011 at 14:18  
Blogger Owl said...

Apparently there are 4% atheists in Ireland according to some statistics. Therefore the reality is most likely about a tenth of that, i.e. about 0.4%.

These 0.4% percent want to change the constitution.

They do not seem to realise that the other 99% don't agree with them.

This is standard secular logic.

The minority trying to tyranise the majority.

350 people turned up, next time maybe 250. I "rejoice" in the dwindling numbers.

None of the speakers were Irish and many/most of the Irish attendees were in their 20's. Undoubtably intellectual heavyweights or maybe just for the free coffee.

Dawks has no understanding of the Irish.

We are laughing our heads off at him.

Number one candidate for Ireland's prat of the year award.

7 June 2011 at 14:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

If you disapprove of abortion don't have one but don't tell me that I can't.’

Yes we can.

The living child in the womb is a member of our community. And therefore is entitled to the protection that the law allows him.

This is not yet a fascist or communist secular state.

7 June 2011 at 14:20  
Anonymous Ambassador of the Imperial Alpha Draconian Court said...

9th Cyber-Legion- as said before on another thread- this is our qudrant of the galaxy and therefore keep your mits off it or be crushed by our swift imperial space navy!

7 June 2011 at 14:21  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

What are you talking about? Most churches in this world are poor. And what has that to do with the onset of poverty in a formerly rich population that believes nothing? That is the future you have prepared for yourself.

I am a Christian. I understand the Book of Job, and I understand that this life on this Earth is not the penultimate focus of my existence. You are an atheist. You acknowledge nothing but your life on this Earth. That difference has impact when life gets hard. The Christian always - always - has hope. The atheist has nothing.

carl

7 June 2011 at 14:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

gresham58

‘I live in a world of the Large Hadron Collider, The Hubble Space Telescope and The Human Genome Project, the stories that they tell are far more exciting and marvellous… and what is even better they are demonstrably TRUE.’

You haven’t demonstrated why one lump of matter (your brain) finds the other lump of matter (the galaxy) as ‘TRUE’.

7 June 2011 at 14:41  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Carl
What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the wealth accumulated by the various denominations of Christians all over the world.

The Church in England was once if not now the largest land owner. It now owns billions in shares in the Stock Market.

The Vatican of course has poverty written right though all of its opulence.

Amreican Evangelists, Mormons, Hot Gospellers call them what you will are dripping in the stuff. What about the sale of indulgences to fund various Crusades Money, money, money.

As for believing in nothing - you Sir assume too much and offer so little that has not been already said ad- nauseum.

Your arrogance is astounding but not surprising as you can't believe you have been hoodwinked by a giant money making monolith called faith without reason.

7 June 2011 at 14:45  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

DanJO, Turkey's 'Secular State' is one in name only. The State Religion, protected by various laws, is Islam. Christianity is proscribed in all manner of ways by means of the same laws that make Islam the State Religion. One of the most prescriptive laws on the Turkish Statute BOok, forbids the appointment of a Patriarch to the Orthodox Church who is not a Turkish National, and theologically educated and trained in Turkey. Since the last Turkish Christian Theological College was officially closed in the 1950s, I would suggest there is a grim future in that "secular" state for Christians. Everyone else should be fine though, except that it is also against the law to deny there is a God...

As for those who think religion is 'evil' and Atheism 'good' - look no further than the history of the nations ruled by such devout atheists as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others of the 20th Century...

7 June 2011 at 14:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with atheists is that they don't realize that atheism, itself, is a religion.

7 June 2011 at 14:53  
Blogger len said...

Prof Dawkin`s is actually a very poor spokesman for atheists.
Because its not so much that the Prof disbelieves in God ,but more the fact that he just plain doesn`t like Him.

Dreadnaught,
I would very like some of the 'wealth' you speak about to come my way, any suggestions, and yes, I do have a full time job!. I suppose you can tell what contempt God has for Mammon by the people He allows to suckle at its teat.

7 June 2011 at 14:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes. Even the atheist astronomer has to infer that that distant planet is out there.

7 June 2011 at 14:55  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

'The Church of England has now made £100 million a year from property sales in the past ten years.
Over the past ten years, the Commissionersí total return on their investments has averaged 11.1 per cent per year, compared with 7.9 per cent per year for the industry benchmark'.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050331cofe.shtml

7 June 2011 at 14:59  
Anonymous Rose Mackenzie said...

I think Pelegrino has made a valid point.Dawkins tends to pontificate on matters that he knows little about.

7 June 2011 at 15:02  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DAWKINS BELIVES IN ALIENS!

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

7 June 2011 at 15:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

And how to find God's 'signature' as the Author of His Word - the Bible:

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/sixes.htm

7 June 2011 at 15:12  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

And Christians believe in Virgin birth and transubstatiation - pays yer money and takes yer chance. Oh did I mention the M word - sorry!

7 June 2011 at 15:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peace at last!

The leader of the anti-theists believes in little green men and Christians believe in the Virgin Birth.

All's Well that Ends Well!

Stay tuned folks!

7 June 2011 at 15:24  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Greshem58,

Sure is no true scotsman in here this afternoon. If atheism is not a philosophy of its own, how come atheists are so keen to mark religion as a single article. The only thing linking religions together is a belief in the supernatural. You can't look at 11.9.01 and say that it shows the need to remove religious influence from the world. They were Muslims, not Hindus, or Christians, or Jews or Buddhists, or Sikhs, or neo-pagans, or Mormons, or druids.

I'd like to hear of an atheist based philosophy that has not been intrinsically corrupt. There have been plenty of non-corrupt religious societies.

Nu-atheism is nothing more than a childish superiority problem. They consider themselves so important, that whilst making out that it is the majority that define morality, they still insist that society should be based on their tiny minority. Lecturing Ireland about how their vast Christian majority should bow to the wishes of the tiny atheist minority is risible.

Dwakins is not a respected academic or theologian. He never even earned his professor title. I wish people would learn that if they ignored him, he'd go away.

7 June 2011 at 15:24  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Anon 15.24

)
)
zzzzzzz

Shshshshsh

7 June 2011 at 15:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Humanism is the new Nazism. Intolerance rules.

7 June 2011 at 15:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gresham58

I am aware of the fable of improvement through the accumulation of small errors. Now I program production machines for a living. Never once have I been able set a recalcitrant machine aright by randomly changing instructions. All corrections require an understanding of the machine and sometimes weeks of concentrated work, ie it requires an intelligence. I suspect this is why engineers as opposed to the fantasists who fancy themselves scientists don't care for evolution. The result of their work has to work in the real world, unlike the fanciful world of the Darwinians, who can invoke statis, change, planetwide disruptions, hopeful monsters and outright lies (see Kettlewell and his coloured moths) to save their religion and bacon.

Ivan

7 June 2011 at 15:41  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Ivan anonymous, 12:09.

Can I suggest that you read it again, and try to understand it this time?

7 June 2011 at 15:45  
Anonymous Tony B said...

D Singh: No - he suggested aliens are a possibility; as indeed they are.

7 June 2011 at 15:47  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Lakester -

"There have been plenty of non-corrupt religious societies."

Name one.

7 June 2011 at 16:00  
Anonymous Tony B said...

carl jacobs 13:42

Twaddle, from the first letter to the last.

7 June 2011 at 16:01  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I'll wager Dawkins bores the Devil too.


Ivan @ :15:41

A most interesting point of view!

(suffering 'missing posts' syndrome here; my apologies if near duplicates appear.)

7 June 2011 at 16:33  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Tony B

Ours, Nigh on all of Europe, the USA, Israel, most of the Islamic world before Wahabbism. No ritual slaughter, no Gulags, no ethnic cleansing, no gas chambers. Yes, there were great errors, but they were the exception rather than the rule. It's estimated that all of the religious wars put together killed fewer than the 20th century atheists.

7 June 2011 at 16:35  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dreadnaught @ 15:13

Not ALL do, some have other ideas; ideas that do not detract from Christ's purpose.

7 June 2011 at 16:39  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Sovereignty is derived from the people's teutates.

The teutons need a sacrifice.

7 June 2011 at 16:58  
Anonymous Ambassador of the Imperial Alpha Draconian Court said...

@Tony B- of course "aliens" exist- I am proof of that. But we didn't seed any planets like the Dawkins suggests. No we RULE planets. The question is who rule your planet if and when we decide to annex your solar system, puny human!

PS- we are not "little, green men", but approx 10 foot tall, purple skinned and androggynous.

7 June 2011 at 17:19  
Anonymous Fairly Modest German said...

Does any one know WTF Brad in the bone talks about ?

7 June 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Fairly Modest German said..."Does any one know WTF Brad in the bone talks about ?"

Only those with a knowledge of our history, although I doubt they visit Cranmers Gay chat room as much as you and me.

I speak of one of a trinity, being a trinitarian.

7 June 2011 at 17:34  
Anonymous Dick Miami said...

Thanks to Richard Dawkins for yet another scythe to ugly foliage of religoon's lazy assertions.

7 June 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Does any one know WTF Brad in the bone talks about ?"

It's a struggle most of the time, it seems to be a mix of all sorts of stuff. I think if one were a Gypsy then it might help but I'm guessing.

7 June 2011 at 17:46  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Insula natura triquetra

7 June 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "Humanism is the new Nazism. Intolerance rules."

There's a curious Alice Through The Looking Glass aspect to comments like that. Here's me, an atheist and an advocate of a secular State championing the setting up of a tolerant and liberal system where all religions have guaranteed space, posting alongside a number of alleged Christians here who are advocating shipping all our Muslim citizens off our shores. Yet it is people like me who allegedly have totalitarian or fascist inclinations because of my politics.

7 June 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Welcome to this evenings gay chat event.

Regular gay chatters will be interested to note the word sovereign in the latin form is SUPER ANUS!

7 June 2011 at 18:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I hadn't realised you took it up the poo chute Bred. Blimey, what with me, you and Viking on board we could even start a Glee club or something.

7 June 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger Mr Sheppard said...

They do do economics? And I don't understand the reference to complementary medicine?

7 June 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Ha!

They've hastily added Economics to the curriculum and removed the reference on the linked page to 'complementary therapies'. Gosh. They must be reading.

7 June 2011 at 18:38  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

Withdraw that vile accusation.

7 June 2011 at 18:46  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

I used to enjoy reading the comments on this site as much as I enjoy HG's posts. The trouble now is there are too many annoying gayboy atheist/secular antagonistic baboons commenting. I know it's not very Christian of me to say so but there we are!

7 June 2011 at 18:51  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Tut DanJo, coarseness does not become you...stick to 'Songs from the Shows' is my advice.

7 June 2011 at 18:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"DanJ0, Withdraw that vile accusation."

Sorry, I thought you were at least an honorary member. :(

Just me and you then Bred.

7 June 2011 at 18:53  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Actually, if this thread doesn't improve, it will be deleted. Please keep remarks clean and on-topic. This is a forum for intelligent and erudite discussion.

7 June 2011 at 18:55  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Maturecheese - I've had personal experience of ''antagonistic baboons'' - the buggers threw rocks at me!

7 June 2011 at 18:55  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Earlier today the venerable Len said -

...the Atheists have cleared the way for the birth an Islamic controlled State.[]...The Atheists in their search for 'freedom from the shackles of religion' and the abolishment of Biblical Christianity have unwittingly sown the seeds of their own demise...

An opinion I think that simply does not hold water. At the debate in Dublin, Iranian and apostate from Islam Maryam Namasie, gave her twopennorth on the spread of Islam by looking through Len's (no pun intended) telescope - but the right way round.

She said amongst other things:-

Given the havoc that Islamism is wreaking worldwide, concepts such as ‘Islamic reformism’ ‘Islamic liberalism,’ and labels such as ‘Islamic societies’ or ‘Islamic communities’ deliberately or inadvertently become part of the effort to Islamicise societies and communities and hand them over lock, stock and barrel to regressive and parasitical Islamic organisations, imams and states.

If you want a ‘cuddlier’ version of Islam, then get rid of Islamism
.

Note the reference to 'world wide' not just us nasty atheists in jolly old Blighty.

7 June 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

Thank you.

7 June 2011 at 19:05  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

I do apologise, I intended to include her site reference wherein can be found the full text of her speech - if anyone not totally engrossed in insulting DanJo is remotely interested in the OP.

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2011/06/islamic-inquisition.html?spref=tw

7 June 2011 at 19:08  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

graham wood said...
@ 10:29
"What tolerance can Dawkins’ atheism possibly manifest when it believes the Roman Catholic Church to be ‘an evil institution’? "
"On this one point therefore Dawkins can be vindicated."

Oh that's right, go ahead and prove Dawkins correct by attacking a Christian church and highlighting our divisions! That'll help tackle aethieism

Very clever.

And, by the way, you really should become better acquainted with actual Catholic doctrine before railing against it.

7 June 2011 at 19:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Trying to insult, and failing completely. They may as well try to insult me for having brown hair, it'd have the same level of impact.

Regarding the article, 'complementary therapies' are not necessarily pseudo-medicines. They're more like physical therapies like massage and stuff, wrapped up in mumbo jumbo language, aren't they?

7 June 2011 at 19:17  
Anonymous D said...

1 Glad to hear it.

2 Probably.

7 June 2011 at 19:30  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Programme on MrD tonite - not this one - the other bewhiskered one 8pm BBC4

7 June 2011 at 19:32  
Anonymous 12th Cyber Legion said...

The Cyber Controller suggests his Grace do the following with this thread:

Delete, delete, delete!

7 June 2011 at 19:36  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I wonder if it will teach "bottling" on the cirriculum .

I rather like this continued alledged persuance of freedom via athiesm , surely if you have freedom of conscience , you can have the freedom to have a realtionship with christ.
The other puzzling thing is what possible threat to an athiest is a christian , i mean why declare a sort of war on people who are peacful yet in his groups mind deluded .
His only vision must be one where religion is holding humanity back and as soon as we realise we are all mere genetic transfer computers the better we all shall be .....
He still does not make the link between scientific discovery and christian enlightenment (perhaps it was sheer good fortune it happend the way round it did).

year zero , (come in judaeo/christianity your time is up) surrender what is logically mine , give thanks and praise to Darwin who bravely forfieted his reputation so that equally visonary people like me could stand here today and blow raspberries at 2000yrs of mitre and gold braided humbug .Mengele was misunderstood he was just sorting out the duff computers to ensure a more dazzling age would be upon us.

dawkins and co "we know what needs doing with your duff computers" (all work guarenteed EU/world vison compliant)

For a man that believes in natural selection , he sure is forming a lot of the nature computer to his own mechanistic vison.

7 June 2011 at 19:39  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, sorry, but why is bred in the bone going on about this being a "gay chat event". If the chap- I also have no idea what he is on about half the time- thinks this is the case, he does not have to post on this site.

Danjo- thank you for answering my question. You want a secular state for practical not ideological reasons, although to my mind the easier way of undoing the labour damage is to rewrite or re-do the current legislation, thus removing the need to move towards the secular state.

7 June 2011 at 19:41  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

In any case if we did have a secular state we would have to abandon our national anthem, which is of course beyond the pale.

7 June 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

In my summing up of YGs post, the atheist dictatorship ought to be listening to our sovereign people.

The whole thing is just another 'think tank' front, that does our deciding for us.

Take religion out of schools by altogether for me, but teach us our true history.

That is all we ask, but we shall not recieve it, because the sovereign people are ignored all the time.

And so the showdown must go on.

7 June 2011 at 19:44  
Anonymous Ambassador of the Imperial Alpha Draconian Court said...

gay chat event? I thought I was communicating with the human government! What is a gay anyway? Are they a different species to humans?

7 June 2011 at 19:47  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Ah debate is dead, the Lords have spoken.

7 June 2011 at 19:47  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The old top hat verses the flat cap is alive and well in the House of Traitors.

7 June 2011 at 19:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lord L: "Danjo- thank you for answering my question. You want a secular state for practical not ideological reasons, although to my mind the easier way of undoing the labour damage is to rewrite or re-do the current legislation, thus removing the need to move towards the secular state."

You're welcome. Sorry for being abrupt but I was being D.Singh-ed at the time.

There's something wrong in the equality legislation or more likely the interpretation of it which is layering error on error I think. We need to strip it back and revisit it but these things tend to just have a forward momentum.

I'm not sure it's enough though even if we could. We're a multicultural nation now and there's not a lot we can do about that and remain true to our core values. At best, I think we can ameliorate the consequences in various ways.

If it isn't obvious then I ought to say that I support the principles of Article 9 of the HRA, I am most certainly not pushing for an atheistic society using the State. But I just don't see that we can empower Christianity through the State any more and not cause friction outside of it given the diversity in our society now.

7 June 2011 at 20:04  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The toffs and poofs alliance is as old as Sparta, you never have represented the people nor ever will.

And you know it.

7 June 2011 at 20:47  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Is it me, or is Bred in the Bone trying to "come out"? If so I would say there's no shame, we're all the same!

7 June 2011 at 21:07  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Its definately you!

This blog has been hyjacked by the Committee of 300

Is gay Anglican a statement of faith?

7 June 2011 at 22:07  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Lakester, your definition of corrupt obviously differs greatly from mine,and you know that 20th century atheist deaths argument is absurd.

7 June 2011 at 22:16  
Anonymous Pageantmaster said...

Year Zero? - that would be Anno Dawkins I suppose.

7 June 2011 at 22:21  
Blogger Owl said...

It is noteworthy that Dawkins is being virtually ignored in Ireland.
Except for the report in the Irish Times and one in the Christian Post there is deafening silence and complete lack of interest.

I think Dawks should send HG a note of thanks that he he getting any publicity at all.

The secular state has taken another setback.

With nutters like the Prof., the chances of a secular state religion replacing Christianity keep dwindling all the time.

7 June 2011 at 23:01  
Blogger Tim said...

I think 'believe this or suffer in hell' is worse intolerance than all atheist intolerance. :(

7 June 2011 at 23:44  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

TB,

How is it absurd? It's true... And how do you define corrupt (remember I said intrinsically so) so that it encompasses all of past society?

You understand of course, that I am not condemning atheism as evil intinsically, but pointing out the ridiculousness of lumping barely related people together (religions for example), charicaturising them, picking up only their faults, ignoring any good and then condemning on the base of that. There is more logic in distrusting atheism because it has yet to produce a free society.

Worse still, and so deliciously ironically, there is literally no evidence that a more secular society would be any better. Asserting dogma without evidence? But that's what religions do isn't it?

Tim,

How is it intolerant if you don't believe in Hell? Besides, that was never the message anyway. Typical atheist logic. Was it Sam Harris who said that some people have such dangerous ideas that we should kill them? I'm sure that's far more tolerant than fearing for someone's soul...

Perhaps you can point me to all these tolerant atheist societies. China? North Korea? USSR?

8 June 2011 at 00:00  
Blogger len said...

Tim,
It is a matter of cause and effect.
I believe that if I continually walk across the road with my eyes closed I will eventually get run over.Its not that the cars hate me and are 'going to teach me a lesson' by running me over.
Christians go to heaven because they share the same spirit as the One (Jesus )who belongs there.
Hell was created for Satan and his demons, not for humans.
However all that reject God (knowingly or not)have come under the jurisdiction of Satan.
So God doesn`t send anyone to Hell, we go there by our refusal to accept God`s solution(Jesus Christ) for our fallen condition.

Jesus Christ offers salvation to all that would accept Him as mediator between man and God and does not wish that anyone should go to Hell.

8 June 2011 at 00:15  
Blogger gresham58 said...

Ivan said
"Never once have I been able set a recalcitrant machine aright by randomly changing instructions."

It's not about getting things right, evolution doesn't have a goal; it is a combination of small random change and an environment where that change is advantageous.
When you go and get antibiotics do you want the latest one or do you get one that bacteria are resistant to?

8 June 2011 at 05:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Was it Sam Harris who said that some people have such dangerous ideas that we should kill them?"

Luckily, I'm an atheist who most definitely does not believe that so perhaps we cancel each other out. In fact, I'm an atheist who argues here that Muslims in this country are normal, decent people on the whole and we should seek to set up the conditions to live harmoniously side by side. Yet we have neo-crusaders here who want to push Muslims off our shores, at the point of a metephorical sword if needs be, to return the country to a mono-culture with, of course, Christianity at its heart despite it being a small minority interest in church-attendee terms. Which is the position best described as intolerant there?

8 June 2011 at 06:12  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Christianity at its heart despite it being a small minority interest in church-attendee terms

Yet still more attend Church than football matches so SkySport should xhange its format.

8 June 2011 at 07:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Atheists like Tony B love to share about the violence that religious believers have done, they rarely take stock of atheistic crimes such as those done by Stalin (20 mill. killed) , Mao (70 mill. killed), Hitler (10 mill. killed), Castro, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, etc.

Atheists such as Dawkins deny that rejection of God has anything to do with these killings, but the one common factor in these movements was the denial of God.
In the past hundred years or so, the most powerful atheist regimes - Communist Russia, Communist China, and Nazi Germany - have wiped out people in astronomical numbers.

Stalin 20 million, Mao Zedong up to 70 million, Hitler 10 million
Not including Lenin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and "lesser" atheist tyrants Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il. Pol Pot about 1/5 of his population 1.5-2 million people.

All of religious violence approx 200,000 Scales to world population about a factor of 5 to a million, still a factor of 100 down from the atheist regimes.

8 June 2011 at 08:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Voyager: "Yet still more attend Church than football matches so SkySport should xhange its format."

Huh? why?

8 June 2011 at 08:28  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
I agree with you most Muslims are peaceable people,but quite obviously some are not.(See images on this blog)
Now the question we should be asking is what does it take for a peaceable Muslim to cross the line and become a fundamental Muslim.?
When push comes to shove will the peaceable Muslims join their fundamentalist brothers?.
Also Islam is as much a political system as it is a religious system and Muslims want to change our laws and our culture to conform with Islam.
If one form of Islam takes over so to speak this could easily be superseded by a more radical form.
I am not scaremongering here only pointing out the facts.
Tolerance may be the 'crowning Jewel of a liberal Society'but it is a philosophy which is being used against the West(as with the attempt to silence Geert Wilders) and not for the first time.
Threats whether real or perceived must be allowed to be discussed freely.

8 June 2011 at 08:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

‘Yet we have neo-crusaders here who want to push Muslims off our shores, at the point of a metephorical sword if needs be, to return the country to a mono-culture’.

You write a load of twaddle because you are an atheist and therefore a materialist.

You clearly think that the majority of Christians want to deport the Moslem – to where? They have British passports and deportation is out of the question because by making them stateless no other country is going to take them in. The reason why you think in terms of race is because it is a factor in the material world. You cannot think beyond the material world; for example, the phrase ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ would be meaningless to you.

What Christians pray for is the conversion of their neighbour to their faith and if that happens there may broadly emerge a ‘mono-culture’. For example, you can be black and a Christian; you can be a Frenchman and a Christian – get it?

A ‘mono-culture’ is necessary for a social consensus on national values and in order to avoid social conflict – the very thing you fear.

8 June 2011 at 08:40  
Anonymous greg tingey said...

Communism is a classic religion.
It is even structurally modelled on the RC church.
Associating the mild-mannered Prof Dawkins with fanatic religious communists is a LIE, as Cranmer should well know.

Given the injuries inflicted on Ireland by the Catholic church, a little atheism would do them no harm.

8 June 2011 at 08:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "Atheists such as Dawkins deny that rejection of God has anything to do with these killings, but the one common factor in these movements was the denial of God."

Another is that were all fronted by charismatic meglomaniacs. Another is that they contain very strong (ahem) nationalistic elements. Another is that they're all communist-oriented and totalitarian, bar Hitler's which was totalitarian and contained elements of mysticism instead. I bet I can think of more too if I could be bothered.

In fact, the single most striking thing that atheists share with each other is, well, the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's why they're called a-theists rather than (say) god-less communists. I expect a-theists as a group have many different political beliefs and very differing levels of commitment to political a-theism.

8 June 2011 at 08:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "You write a load of twaddle because you are an atheist and therefore a materialist."

Well, that's a debatable opinion but it doesn't relate to the sentence you quoted. When I said 'here' I meant here on this forum. They openly post it. Have you not seen it??

"You clearly think that the majority of Christians want to deport the Moslem – to where?""

No. You are making stuff up - a common trait with many of the vocal-religious here. But yes, to where? It's truly outrageous isn't it? These are our citizens and in many cases born-citizens. You throw around the Nazi label towards atheists with abandon but some your fellow self-identifying Christians here are a much more deserving target I think. Denounce them.

8 June 2011 at 08:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len, I roughly agree with you. But your comments (and mine) are based on the assumption that Muslims can be included in our democratic life in the UK. Not all of us here share that assumption. Regarding your last comment, I'm a liberal so I agree entirely.

8 June 2011 at 08:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJO

'In fact, the single most striking thing that atheists share with each other is, well, the lack of a belief in a god or gods.’

You seem unable to see the implications of your thought.

Your ‘god’ is your world-view: your totem pole.

You have fallen for Lord Acton’s lie: ‘Presume not God to scan the proper study of mankind is man.’

But for a man to study mankind he needs an objective ‘reference point’ which has to be outside of mankind to reveal to him the condition of man.

8 June 2011 at 08:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "You seem unable to see the implications of your thought. our ‘god’ is your world-view: your totem pole."

And so you slide meanings along again rather than deal with the actual comments written.

8 June 2011 at 08:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Right, if 'Jim Atherstone' pops up then I'm not unable to answer subsequent points because I am wrong, merely sans computer for a while. Have fun.

8 June 2011 at 08:59  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Psalm I (KJV)

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, Jer. 17.8 that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

8 June 2011 at 09:01  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

People like Richard Dawkins have occasionally risen to rule nations, and the horrific consequences of their intolerance of religious expression and aggressive assertions of atheism are matter of historical record. It is a curious blindness which fails to perceive that it is the very presence of the Church that ensures the ‘tolerance for all religions’.

What an absolutely outrageous slur. Your comments reveal just how low you will stoop in order to defend your infantile supernatural beliefs.

Grow up man!

8 June 2011 at 09:17  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Lakester

"How is it absurd? It's true..."

Really? let's hear your in-depth historical analysis of how Word War one, for example, was started by atheists. Of course you won't be able to do this, because it was started by Christian countries who then fought each other, often spurred on at the front by Christian pastors. These were Christians, led by Christians, killing other Christians led by Christians. To deny this is foolishness.

.."pointing out the ridiculousness of lumping barely related people together (religions for example), charicaturising them, picking up only their faults, ignoring any good and then condemning on the base of that."

I haven't done that, though.

"Worse still, and so deliciously ironically, there is literally no evidence that a more secular society would be any better. Asserting dogma without evidence? But that's what religions do isn't it? "

I've never said that it would, or that there was.

You appear to be extrapolating from things that I have said, other things that you also seem to think I have said but actually haven't.

Anyway, can't hang around here all day, I'm off to church.

8 June 2011 at 09:19  
Anonymous Tony B said...

D Singh:

"Atheists like Tony B"

Can I just stop you there? I'm not an atheist. Well, to be fair, it depends on your definition.

"love to share about the violence that religious believers have done blah blah blah"

Don't be daft. I was pointing out a rather obvious flaw in what His Grace had pontificated (if I can be forgiven for using the word) - I don't have to launch into a potted history of the 20th century every time I do that, you berk.

8 June 2011 at 09:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Try to exapnd your vocabulary.

8 June 2011 at 09:30  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

God,any god,is a creature who inhabits every unconcious mind throughout the entire existence of man,how could any-one possibly do away with it?,concious and unconcious have shaped all of us,it is what we are,neither can be quantified for there is no supreme example for comparison.There is something clearly unwholesome in this mans hatred of something we are all scarcely aware of,for why should it matter to this man ,to this degree what another man holds as true or belief, to mount this kind of crusade against it?.

8 June 2011 at 09:39  
Blogger len said...

TB , Not THE TB, I trust?

Mt 22:36 “[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Some claim to be 'Christians' when they are obviously not.In fact some claim to be whatever you wish them to be in order to get you to follow them.Even Satan appears as an Angel of Light.
There have been many 'saviours' and false prophets coming in the name of Christianity but their actions and beliefs betray them. .........
Now to me, this treating your neighbour as yourself seems a great idea on which to build a Society.And it is,along with Christian moral values has served us very well providing a stable Society. Now if you keep' picking away at these beliefs 'undermining the foundations , you weaken the whole structure.This I believe is the whole purpose of the 'secularisation' of our Society.Secularists intend to rebuild Society in their image, problem is there may be nothing left to re build, or others(guess who) may re build Society in THEIR image.

8 June 2011 at 09:48  
Anonymous Angelo said...

The Atheist viewpoint is to seek an alternative to God, because they feel that in so doing they can follow whatever course in life they want. Without fear of ever having to give an account of their actions to a supreme being.
In their minds IF they proved to be wrong they could plead ignorance, problem is of course that ignorance is never an acceptable plea.
The creator and sustainer of all things (including atheists) has a right to be the Lord and King over his creation and to hold all individuals to account over what he has entrusted to them. whether they like it or not, they are his subjects. either loyal or rebels, the fact is that whatever fables the rebels seek to weave to hide and protect them from his justice will prove as effective as wet paper on the day of reckoning.
All have been given freewill and choice. Choose wisely and be honest with yourselves at least.

8 June 2011 at 09:59  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Try to exapnd your vocabulary

Try to type more accurately

8 June 2011 at 10:03  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Len,

The problem is that when you want to do so, you will claim that Christians make up 70 - odd percent of the UK population, or that Christianity is the largest religion in the world with x billion followers..then when it suits your argument, as quick as a flash you will cross 75% of them off the list.

So pardon me for not taking your remarks seriously.

Amusingly the security word here is Stalinfu. A cross between Uncle Joe and Fu Manchu, perhaps?

8 June 2011 at 10:08  
Blogger len said...

TonyB,
to whom are you addressing your remarks.?

A name would be nice.

Have a nice day!

8 June 2011 at 10:10  
Blogger len said...

Tony B,

The statistics of 'real 'Christians is one only the Lord would have the accurate figures on.But He did say it would be relatively small.

I once claimed to be an Atheist, now I do not .So people do change sides ,so to speak.

I would blush to tell you what my Word verification is.

8 June 2011 at 10:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Try to type more accurately.'

One is either accurate or not.

One cannot be 'more accurate'.

8 June 2011 at 10:34  
Anonymous springer said...

Graham Davis has said:

"When I became an atheist more than 50 years ago I naively dreamt of a future world where all religious claims would be regarded as quaint throwbacks to the age of ignorance."

That would be your Year Zero vision would it?

Grow up man.

Most people grew out of this type of Atlantis mythology at infant school: let us wipe history clean and start again. It's pathological for an adult to still harbour such dreams. (Less a dream, more like a complex)

Instead of living in your fantasy world of dreams, cleansing speculation and pseudo-science; why not try developing into a rounded adult?

You're the person most gripped by the 'supernatural' that ever comments here.

You imagine that the descriptive terms of science point to an exact world 'out there' - your own 'super'nature. It's utterly naive to mistake descriptive terms for 'reality'. Most adults know the difference between words and 'things'.

Science is a viable and quantified description that refers, internally to its own classifications. To make any greater claim for science is to be gripped by the supernatural - like yourself.

Both Planck and Mach were fully aware of this dilemma. This is why Planck self-consciously refered to physics as a "vocation". He knew that scientific terms could not be identified with reality, but that for physics to continue it must live with this classical assumption; somewhat as an act of faith.

Mach could not accept such terms, and became, in his own words: excommunicated.

But physics, in order to survive, required Planck. And to this day it requires the assertion of being a vocation ie. a calling of belief.

It is either naive (yourself) or divisive (Dawkins) to ignore the footing upon which Planck established modern science.

Planck was a genius who enabled the beautiful descriptions of science to flourish. He untangled us from the hoary issues of ontology and epistemology, and enabled science, AS A PRACTICE, to flourish.
He negotiated a way beyond the impasse that opposes 'description' to 'reality' by quite simply accepting that limitation. It is a limitation that obliges all practical scientists (which Dawkins is not).

Science has nothing to say about religion. Nothing.

Their descriptive terms are complementary, and yet mutually exclusive. One is lyrical, the other is quantitative; both are descriptive. Most balanced adults can accept both modes of expression within their lives.

But not you and Dawkins.

8 June 2011 at 11:12  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Springer said

Most balanced adults can accept both modes of expression within their lives.

Despite your eloquence I’m afraid that second “mode of expression” is just believing in fairies. There is simply no limit to what you can define as true if it doesn’t require rational justification. So carry on believing in whatever turns you on or more likely whatever you were spoon fed as an infant.

8 June 2011 at 11:33  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Singh: that really depends on which definition of accurate you choose. But really, who cares?

8 June 2011 at 11:37  
Anonymous springer said...

@Graham Davis

My, how eloquent. What a lot you know about science!

I believe in nothing. I simply follow descriptions.

It is you who believes.

You're sounding a bit emotional, grow up man.

8 June 2011 at 11:43  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Len,

It seems that the word Christian is therefore a pretty meaningless label.

8 June 2011 at 11:44  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Springer said

It is you who believes.

Not so, I am content with “it is reasonable to assume based on the evidence....” that is until a better explanation comes along. Believing in magic is just too silly and that is all religion has ever been. Invented by man in order to explain what he was too ignorant to understand. Of all the thousands of gods that man has believed in only a few remain and those are driven by self-serving bigots like the Pope or sustained, in the case of Islam, by ignorant mullahs whose knowledge of the world was terminated more than a thousand years ago. That otherwise intelligent, rational people should remain it its thrall is nothing short of amazing. But I guess if you get ‘em young enough, and religion always makes sure that it does, then your indoctrination is all but guaranteed.

8 June 2011 at 12:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

To assume - is to believe you silly old fool.

8 June 2011 at 12:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older