Friday, August 10, 2012

Why does the BBC ignore Usain Bolt's God?

Usain Bolt - the fastest man on the planet - is a devout believer (of the Protestant Christian kind) in the One True God. And he makes absolutely no secret at all of the fact: he crosses himself to exalt the Trinity, and mouths a prayer to the heavens before every race. And after each victory, he publicly gives thanks to God, in word and physical supplication. Following yesterday's triumph in the 200m, he said of his Lord and Saviour: "Nothing would have been possible without Him."

Is this not worth just a passing mention by the BBC?

It is strange that they chose to narrate in minute detail every minute of the countdown: as the clock was ticking, they filmed him on CCTV and followed his every move. They described Bolt's events and focused on the man and his achievements like they have no other athlete. We were given insights into his family life, with comments by his brother, parents and coach. The focus on the personal has been intense.

But not one mention of Bolt's faith.

While he was manifestly thanking God on his knees for yesterday's victory, the BBC presenter spun this spontaneous act of worship as Bolt having 'a moment to himself'. This manifestly blurs the significance for the viewer. This is what Bolt tweeted:

But not a mention by the BBC. Instead, they pass it over with embarrassment, pretending it is what it is not. What they refer to as 'a moment to himself' is a glorious outpouring of thanks and praise to God.

The BBC have known for more than four years what Usain Bolt always does, before and after each race, without fail: how he chooses the moment the camera is on him to make the act of humble worship, as a very public witness that it is the Creator who made him fast. They have been briefed to bits by Bolt's PR team and by members of his family: Usain Bolt is a Bible-believing, God-honouring, Jesus-worshipping Christian. But not a whisper from the BBC; not a word of explanation of the real significance of these 'moments to himself'.


Blogger AnthroPax said...

I didn't think many Protestants crossed themselves, or wore the Miraculous Medal, are you sure he's not 'starting the race on the left foot'?

10 August 2012 at 09:36  
Blogger Marc de Salis said...

There's an hour long documentary about it on Radio 4, it's still up on iPlayer.

10 August 2012 at 09:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Marc de Salis,

You illustrate His Grace's point perfectly. While the world's billions are captive to video, Bolt's God is crammed into the nutshell of insignificance on audio.

10 August 2012 at 09:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is so often the case: the body gets there first before the brain gets into gear.

10 August 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, one can understand the Beeb's dilemma.

Usain Bolt is so near to perfection (black) and yet so far (Christian). But is all it takes is a name change; Usain becomes Hussein!

Hey presto, a progressive and socially acceptable hero!

Sighs of approval from Dave, Nick, Boris and chums.

10 August 2012 at 10:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a load of old crock.

His faith is personal. Leave it at that.

10 August 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger genghis said...

Perhaps the BBC is simply following the dictates of their very good friends in the Labour Party, and especially of their own Saviour and Creator, namely one Antony Lynton Blair; whose sycophantic spinner was heard to remark that 'We don't do God'!

10 August 2012 at 10:21  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

No real surprise at the way the BBC treats it, just as with yesterday's topic. Both equally sad, but nothing new in what has happened.

10 August 2012 at 10:24  
Blogger Tony B said...

Genghis. Blair is a Christian so what would be the reason for him to suppression this? Even if your suggestions make any sense, which they don't.

10 August 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger Tony B said...

Suppress. Bloody phone.

10 August 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger John Chater said...

Stuff the BBC and its prejudice against Christianity, more manifest every passing year. It too will pass.

I have two young boys and am trying, as best I can, to bring them up as good Christians and it is a joy to me to be able to point to the TV screen when Usain Bolt is celebrating his extraordinary gift, to point out this brilliant, hilarious, self-depreciating, gracious and kind man and say 'There, there is the man. The fastest runner in the history of the world, the greatest sprinter ever, as physically gifted a human being as has ever lived and yet still humble, celebrating God before himself. Glorious indeed.

10 August 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger Methusalem said...

Perhaps, because the BBC is anti-Christianity.

Another questions: Why aren't white European and American athletes crossing themselves or wearing crosses?

And, why did the Christian "Archbishop Cranmer" hail the power and significance of money on this post?

10 August 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger Marc de Salis said...

Your Grace,

Understand that I mentioned the documentary to inform rather than correct. I agree that it is rather offensive to write off a man's prayers as a 'moment to himself'. I also don't doubt the BBC's persistent anti-Christian bias.

However, there has been plenty to like about the games this year. Expecially the beautiful celebration of hymns in the opening ceremony, and the particularly moving rendition of Abide With Me.

10 August 2012 at 11:30  
Blogger bluedog said...

'And, why did the Christian "Archbishop Cranmer" hail the power and significance of money on this post?' asks Methusalem.

None can speak for His Grace.

However, this communicant's reading of the same post was that the author regretted the apparent correlation between Olympic gold and GDP per capita.

His Grace's final sentence: 'And yet what is the real meaning of the 'No1 in the World' Olympic gold standard when all nations cannot compete equally?'

Scarely words that 'hail the power and significance of money'.

10 August 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger John Chater said...


For your peace of mind, here are some white American Christians, regularly outspoken and public about their faith (though what their race has to do with it, I know not):

Brady Ellison (Archery)
Ryan Hall (Marathon)
Jesse Williams (High Jump)
David Boudia (Diving)
Brittany Viola (Diving)
Jonathan Horton (Gymnastics)
Lauren Cheney and Tobin Heath (Football)
Missy Franklin (Swimming)
Hunter Kemper (Triathlon)

There are many more.

10 August 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"A moment to himself" - priceless! It says everything about the BBC's view of religion.

10 August 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger Berserker said...

What is all this tosh about Usain Bolt? It's all over in ten seconds - boring. Now the 1500 metres is the proper, how's yer father, blue riband event. The Algerian who won it so easily got scarcely a mention from the Beeb. Not to mention Mo Farrah in his marvellous win in the 10, 000 metres.

Now I am not knocking Bolt, he is obviously a great runner, but the Beeb's sick making, genuflecting commentators - and wall to wall Bolt and endlessly going on about Jamaica (a crime riddled Island)- even before Bolt had won a race and the week prior is nothing short of inverted rascism.

If Mo Farrah wins the 5000 metres on Saturday - a far harder task than winning the sprint double are we going to get the same level of adulation for this gentleman?

To John Chater I say: Read the quote on the Beeb web: "I am now a living legend"

Modesty indeed. I bet that Mo won't say he's a living legend!

10 August 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger David B said...

Would one want the BBC to give a lot of attention to people who might attribute their success to Mormon faith, or Islamic faith, or the aid of some Hindu deity? Or perhaps to their 'Clear' status as a scientologist, to Chi or Kundalini?

The guy is a great athlete, and he won, and that is all that needs to be said.

The Olympics are contests between athletes, not between religions.

David B

10 August 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger seeafish said...

The British public as well as the media are notoriously shy when it comes to talking about religion. You either hear it slandered or not discussed at all.

Having said that, his faith is personal (as is anyone else's), so not really worth mentioning to be honest.

10 August 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

So if we are ever banned from Christian worship in this country, my response will be "I am just having moments to myself"

10 August 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger Lang Spoon said...

Thanks for publicising the fact that Usain Bolt is a Christian.

I had always assumed from the name Usain that he was some sort of Muslim.

10 August 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

John Chater, well said.

David B:

I think what Cranmer is getting at is that we will hear just about every other minutia about the lives of athletes; we will hear speculation over their thoughts, their emotions, what they've eaten, what they'll do when their finished, what colour their room is - virtually everything except their religious beliefs.

When it boils down to it, none of the commentary much amounts to anything to do with the Olympic events. We don't need to know even a fraction of what they tell us - and yet they tell us. Why is it that whilst we revel in almost every farcical and mundane aspect of an athlete's identity, we cannot even report on an aspect that the athlete themself may consider to be essential to that identity - perhaps even more so than the nation they represent?

It is the difference between ommission and occlusion.

10 August 2012 at 13:26  
Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for that Cranmer.

We would never have found that out from the BBC directly.

I must confess I thought they were probably all on drugs anyway, so many thanks for the correction.

Humbling indeed!

10 August 2012 at 13:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps it's just the Beeb. I get fed up of hearing various light entertainment celebs being asked about "their faith" on ITV.

10 August 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger Nick said...

The BBC, like Channel 4, is not unbiased. It is part of the growing anti-religious culture in the UK. It's god is political correctness, a pernicious but superficially anodyne concept that is as big a threat to religious freedom as Communism was. The BBC feels uncomfortable about religion, often confusing it with culture, and seems unable to grasp the concept of belief or living by faith. No doubt this is a reflection of its employees and its leadership.

I am delighted that Usain has the courage to display his faith in such a public way. If the Godless are uncomfortable with it, then that is their problem

10 August 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger Kennywhizz said...

Well, the BBC have eventually got something right then??
He did it himself. A fictional deity did not help in any way.

10 August 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger Nick said...

I think Mr Bolt would beg to differ with you - and he should know better than either of us what lies behind his achievements, or are you calling him a liar?

10 August 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger Martin Elliff said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 August 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger John Chater said...

If there were a gold medal for missing the point…

I don't think Bolt has ever said that his prodigious talent is a consequence of his faith – that God adds a few miles per hour to his speed for being a churchgoer. A ten year old has a better understanding of Christianity than that.

His is a message of celebrating being alive; the joy of living that has at its heart a delight and respect for all of the gifts given us. And yes, he does call himself a legend and does raise his hands in triumph, but you would need to be very churlish indeed not to see the humour and sense of fun apparent in these brags.

10 August 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger Alison Judith Bailey said...

Bolt did not necessarily have an advantage, because the Bible says:

"God does not take pleasure in the legs of a man, but in the righteous" (only).
Psalm 147:10

We all know what it feels like when we had the idea, did the hard work - but others took all the credit. Taking credit not our own, is a kind of theft.

My "Gold Medal" goes to the horse, "Valegro", as a pefect spiritual image of total obedience to crazy, counter-intuitive instructions which made sense only in the Olympic arena... There is a not a shred of "The Rebel" in that horse...

10 August 2012 at 17:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

…and it’s not just that chaps religion, Archbishop. BBC coverage of Christianity is deplorable. Granted they do Christmas and Easter but what about the rest of the year. Those two festivals are not enough to keep a Christian fellow going, you know !

What is particularly galling is church music especially is not just part of Western Christianity, it’s high culture too. Blasted corporation spends virtually all the licence money pandering to the country’s thickos. What about some of it being spent on the intellectual cream of the land. Inspectors General for example…


10 August 2012 at 17:41  
Blogger Maxwell Turnbull said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 August 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger Simon said...

Kennywhizz (10 August 2012 14:37) and Martin Elliff (10 August 2012 16:49):

It is unlikely that Usain Bolt or indeed any of the many sports stars who cross themselves before events think that God will help them win (what would God do if there were two Christians competing?!). Rather, they are probably dedicating themselves and their achievements to the Lord, as Christians are called to do.

10 August 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger Maxwell Turnbull said...

Maybe the reason for the BBC presenting Usain Bolt and all the other participants of the Olympics is just a blind-a sleight of hand.

Let's face it, the modern Olympics is nothing more than a modern-day Circus Maximus, bread and circuses-just a way for " our elders and betters " to exercise control over us lesser mortals.
You will, no doubt, have noticed that all other news items have paled into insignificance whilst the games have been on.

10 August 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger John Magee said...


Isn't the BBC funded primarily by the annual television license fee paid for by the citizens of the UK?

The BBC is run by liberals and far left wingers and of course is anti Christian and hates Britain's past but is naturally very PC and Islamic friendly isn't it?

That's what you get when a country allows it's media to be funded by tax payer's hard earned money:

A left wing propaganda machine that bites the hand of the believers in God who love their country that feed it.

10 August 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John Magee, we are talking about the last century here, but at one time cowboy and Indian films were banned by the BBC. So was any show featuring dancing girls. As far as one is aware, the Marxists who call the shots now are still continuing the policy inherited from the Marxists who called the shots then.

The BBC is beyond redemption. One would like to think the weasels in charge could be flushed out, but alas, they will be replaced with same.

Break the damn thing up and sell it off, it’s become a damn embarrassment. There is NOTHING it does that can’t be done better privately...

10 August 2012 at 19:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Magee,

Agreed, the' lefties' who run the BBC and are supported by our hard earned cash seem to despise Christians but lean over backwards to support anything Islamic or pro- Palestinian.

Perhaps if the Licence fee was cut or even done away with they would have to come down from their very expensive 'ivory towers'and live in the real world.
This is Britain we don`t all' do God 'publicly but we have a Christian heritage and Christian roots.

10 August 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Proposed final announcement to be broadcast...

It’s 23:59 and this is the BBC, closing down for good. It has to be this way because since the 1970s, we have been infiltrated by Marxist-liberals, homosexuals with an agenda, religion hating secularists and appeasers of Islam. Not to mention the PC people, an assortment of bleeding hearts of liberal compassion, intellectual thugs who despise our heritage, people who bring half dead injured cats home and well, just plain weirdos. Sadly it has resulted in us becoming a national embarrassment.

It is nearly midnight, and you can all be relieved those people are no longer with us as the New-BBC plc takes over...

10 August 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector and len

"Freedom to chose". To a Marxist and left winger those three words are like a crucifix to Dracula.

10 August 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Just to clarify one point. The Inspector believes in public service broadcasting, in the same way he believes in electricity and a water supply. He cannot accept the present ‘public’ setup is valid anymore. It has most clearly had its time...

10 August 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger John Magee said...


Excellent obituary for the Trinity hating left wing BBC. Unfortunatley the only thing "eternal" about Marxism, and it's child the far left, is their lust to control the media and the minds of the naive.

10 August 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Was anyone just watching the women's 5000 metres final? Pretty sure Defar just shoved her faith down the camera there!

10 August 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Yes John, it’s a classic clause 4 aim, what !

For those who baulk at the thought of a privatised BBC, we have, thankfully, notable examples of private owned national newspapers, and we haven’t gone to the Devil...

10 August 2012 at 20:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Youthpasta. Defar had an image of' Mother and Child' she seem to keep it concealed most of the time (probably realised it was not BBC friendly.)

10 August 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger Oliver Nicholson said...

"What is particularly galling is church music especially is not just part of Western Christianity, it’s high culture too." If the Inspector tunes into the Third Programme at 3.30 p.m. on Wednesdays each week he will be able to hear Choral Evensong live from one of our cathedrals or colleges (repeated Sundays).

10 August 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Alas Oliver, the Inspector would be earning his corn at that time.

What would be truly thrilling is TV coverage of the Three Choir’s festival shown on BBC 2 of an evening. One realises outside broadcasts are expensive, but the cultural high is priceless. We really are so fortunate to live in a civilised country...

10 August 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger John M Ward said...

As a few other commenters have already noted in one form or another, the BBC is Left-wing and thus, almost by definition, Satanic in nature.

It is something I never forget, and when applied to situations involving them it always explains what is going on (and why) completely.

The specific targeting of anything Christian (as distinct from any other faith) is a dead give-away, as the devil is very well aware that it is the one and only true faith, and thus attacks it avidly and fervently using every agency at his disposal.

That category of course includes the BBC.

10 August 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger DerekS said...

Mo Farah prostrated himself after his victory. No mention was made of that by the commentary team. It's for the best that athletics commentators stick to athletics.

10 August 2012 at 23:37  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Derek, if that is the case then 2 things need to happen from now on:
1 - The BBC need to stop talking about everything they can find out about athletes that is non-athletics related. (This may be a problem, as I am sure that upbringing can be deemed a part of the story, but then the question has to be asked, how is an athlete's faith NOT related to their performance? After all, if someone is living by a set of beliefs then it has to impact the way their regime is set out.)
2 - The BBC have to stop being so idiotic as to refer to someone praying as "a moment to himself" and either call it as it is or say nothing. (Why there is anything wrong with saying someone is praying, regardless of your own belief or otherwise of the existence of a deity, is beyond me.)

11 August 2012 at 01:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Mr Ward:

As a few other commenters have already noted in one form or another, the BBC is Left-wing and thus, almost by definition, Satanic in nature.

Come now, that kind of catch-all nonsense is exactly what I've come to expect from the Left. There are plenty of people who hold to Left-wing political positions that are neither evil nor Satanic but motivated by an entirely Christian desire to seek the betterment of their neighbour (even if they are often misguided in thinking the mechanisms they prefer will actually do that). There are also legitimate points of departure for orthodox Christians along the road to the Left, but the same can easily be said of the road to the Right.

But simply writing the Left off as terminally Satanic belittles the use of that word and invites equally generalised dismissal by our political opponents.

11 August 2012 at 01:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

There are plenty of people who think affirmation of religion should be invisible in the public square. This applies only to theistic forms of religion, of course. Secular religions may be affirmed without hesitation. If you are Salmon Rushdie and you deliver a commencement address in which you unashamedly assert materialist norms, then you have not violated this prohibition. If you are Alexander Solzhenitsyn, you had best be careful what you say about God and man. This is simply one worldview trying to assert its dominance over another.

But there is another aspect with regard to celebrity that comes into play. These same people want public invisibility of religion to be modeled. If people like Usain Bolt are allowed to talk about religion in public, then others will feel free to follow his example. The modern tactic is to try to publicly shame people into silence. It's difficult to marginalize such a man as Usain Bolt so it is easier to simply ignore that aspect of his life. If people don't know, then they can't appeal to him as a role model.

Modern man views himself as a self-created creature. (Sure, he thinks he is a random event, but that very randomness is the presumed source of his freedom to self-create.) That is why he finds himself in such conflict with religion. A Creator makes claims on man's autonomy. Modern man in turn sees religion as simply one of many 'self-creations.' he understands it as simply a self-created reality which a man is free to live out - so long as he doesn't try imposing any of that self-created reality on others. That is why modern man so fears religion, and why he seeks to suppress it. He understands its power, and he fears it will displace him from his presumed position of 'little god over his own life.' Now, if you happen to believe that man is a Creature under the authority of a Creator, then this will all appear radically different.

The man who believes in God looks the irrational fool to unbeliever. Likewise, the man who disbelieves looks the irrational fool to the believer. Each follows his presuppositions to its natural conclusion. This is not a fight about religion in the public square. It is fundamentally a fight about the nature of man and his place in the universe. Is he creature or is he creator? There is no possibility of compromise on that question. For either side.


11 August 2012 at 02:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The man who believes in God looks the irrational fool to unbeliever. Likewise, the man who disbelieves looks the irrational fool to the believer."

The man who believes in one god looks like a fool, and possibly an enemy, to the man who believes in a different god, too.

11 August 2012 at 08:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

A point of note: Songs of Praise is on BBC1, and Sunday Worship and Thought For Today (no atheism allowed) are on BBC Radio4.

11 August 2012 at 08:21  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan, you can't count Songs of Praise, Sunday Worship or TFTD as the BBC doing religion/Christianity. Songs of Praise is the BBC pigeonholing Christianity, saying that it is a Sunday thing in a building where you sing hymns as opposed to the life-defining belief in a loving Creator. Songs of Praise is safe for the Beeb, they can control it. A soon as they start letting people actually talk freely about Christianity they try to get away, fast.
And, just to put TFTD into perspective, Channel 4 have done a better job with their version (I forget it's name) simply by letting people talk freely. Sure, they have it in a very small slot and it is only 1 time a day during the spweek and nothing on faith apart from it, but it does let people speak more freely than TFTD. TFTD is so bland that it might as well be called "Isn't the world nice and fluffy. GROUP HUG!!!" Jesus' role as Saviour is all too often skated over, Muslim contributors never say that Jesus was only a prophet, Jews never say that the only way to God is through following the teachings of the Torah or that the Messiah has not yet come. It's not faith, it's religious niceties. Only time TFTD was ever true to the faith of the day was when George Carey came in before retiring. He was free from political worries or backlash, so he did it as it should be done and spoke of the Christian faith in full. All others have simply offered platitudes.

11 August 2012 at 08:47  
Blogger Roy said...

IUsain Bolt is not the only gold medal winner to have a manifestation of faith ignored by the BBC. Last night an Ethiopian woman won one of the middle distance events. Unfortunately I was distracted at the start so I'm not certain of the distance and I don't remember the winner's name either.

However the Ethiopian woman was obviously a Christian, probably a Copt, and after she crossed the finishing line she pulled out a piece of paper from inside her vest and, tears falling from her face, held the paper up towards the cameras. On the paper was a picture. Because the picture was not shown in close up on TV I cannot be 100% sure what it depicted but am 100% sure that it was of a religious nature. It looked like an icon and depicted a figure that was either Jesus or Mary.

Needless to say the commentator totally ignored it even though the winner held the picture up for several seconds.

11 August 2012 at 09:38  
Blogger DJW said...

You are quite right, Your Grace. There is a distinct anti-Christian bias at the BBC. Recent evidence of this includes (a) the gentle and sympathetic dialogue between Paxman and Dawkins on Newsnight, when Dawkins was given a lengthy plug for his new book. (b) the explicitly Christian message in HMQ's Christmas broadcast which was not referred to in the reporting of the broadcast on subsequent BBC news bulletins.
David Warnes

11 August 2012 at 10:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

What makes you so sure he's a Protestant. All the the signs point to him being a Roman Catholic

11 August 2012 at 10:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Philip Campbell 'All the the signs point to him being a Roman Catholic'.

Or an Anglican?.

11 August 2012 at 10:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


His Grace's enthusiasm would imply that, however I don't know many Anglicans who wear Miraculas Medals

11 August 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger Demetrius said...

An Ethopian gold medal winner displayed an ikon of the Virgin on her victory and was very quickly taken off screen.

11 August 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Don't get me wrong, what Bolt does is great (and the usual Brazenly Biased Corp. response, or lack of it, is exactly what we would all expect): but the problem might come when an athlete thanks God profusely and then does not win (as must happen from time to time). The athlete (and all of us) would discover real faith through failure and adversity, but then, the scoffers will ask (echoing the Pslms): "Where is his God now? He trusted in God, and look!" I wonder if that line in Chariots of Fire - "Those who honour God will be honoured by Him" (or something) - would be found in the script if it was re-made?

11 August 2012 at 12:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 August 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "All others have simply offered platitudes."

That's for sure. Hence, the occasionally funny Platitude Of the Day.

BBC Radio 4 also has a comparative religion thingy on once a week called Beyond Belief. That's nominally pretty open, though the panel may well be self-censoring.

I suppose I'm very biased but I'd rather our public broadcaster stick mainly to mainstream stuff and leave the full-on god stuff to satellite channels. I've seen enough of the God Channel not to want to see it when I'm channel-surfing.

If the Beeb did offer full on stuff then I suppose they'd need to offer stuff on Hindu and Muslim stuff too in order to be seen to be fair.

11 August 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Eastenders is on BBC1 too and Dot Cotton was staple fayre as a Christian character on there for years! :)

11 August 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The Public Broadcasting System in the US is basically a TV network run by and for upscale secular cosmopolitan Liberals. Since it receives public money, its obvious biases constitute a source of constant friction. And the defenders of PBS always trot out the same tired defenses. They will point to the isolated show here and there in order to establish that the biases don't really exist.

These shows however always had the characteristic of being easily identifiable by their isolation. They tended to be 'talking head' shows in which points of view were easily distinguishable. Or they tended to be 'news and analysis' shows about the subject in question. For example, PBS currently says it does religion by referencing the show 'Religion & Ethics Weekly.' These shows form a ghetto on the network that can be walled off and ignored in the name of inclusivity.

Outside of that ghetto, PBS presents a monolithic ideological face. If it broadcasts a show on history, or science, or economics, or politics, or the arts, or whatever, that show will presume the truth of the secular cosmopolitan liberal world view of its primary viewership. This is the source of the friction that never gets addressed. Where is the show on a general subject that presumes the truth of the Christian or conservative world view? It doesn't exist. The secular viewership can turn on PBS quite certain that its presuppositions will not be offended.

This is the problem. The network presumes the truth of one world view and subjects all other world views to examination from its position of presumed objectivity. If you agree with the foundational world view of the network, you will find its shows quite agreeable. If you don't, you won't. And no amount of references to "Well, we show religious services on Sunday, don't we?" is going to change your mind.


11 August 2012 at 13:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

For those who don't believe no explanation is good enough.

For those who do believe no explanation is necessary.

11 August 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger John M Ward said...

Oh, AnonymousInBelfast!

In simpler circumstances, and further from the End Times, I might indeed have just let this go; but understanding the battleground is vitally important.

This is not a labelling or smearing exercise, but an attempt to help folk realise just how complete the Enemy's domination of the political Left has now become.

It is safe (indeed, essential) to recognise that all organisations within that sphere are in the thrall of the devil; and scratch any Lefty and you will spot that the real motivation is theft and dictatorship, however carefully they try to hide that.

I have dealt with thousands of 'em over the years, and have yet to find a single exception. Perhaps I've just been unlucky...

The BBC is part of that, and has to be treated as entirely corrupt as an organisation, and seeking for years (probably decades) to employ only those of like outlook – so it extends from the corporation to its individual employees.

The same surely applies to all other outfits (e.g. Unions, many think-tanks, much of the media, etc) and it has been long enough now for any infiltration, subversion and the like to have become and remained complete.

It is the only sensible way to regard the lot of them when in the war against the Evil One and his hordes.

11 August 2012 at 15:29  
Blogger John Magee said...

What the UK and Western Europe lack, so far as as I know, are the excellent conservative radio talk show hosts that are enormously popular in the USA. These intelligent people, obsessively mocked by the left, are a bastion of free speech and a valid alternative view against the mainstream liberal dominated privately owned TV networks and the state controlled PBS (which carl jacobs discribed so well above). Other than Sky News and Fox news There must be more media alternatives to the liberal dominated news and pop culture to stand up to the cultural cess pool Hollywood and modern pop culture has become which poisons our children's minds. Radio talk show hosts of all political views add true "diversity" to the free speech arena in the USA. What prevents similar voices in Europe today? Too much government red tape? Language difficulties? I rather imagine the European Court of Justice would consider this idea "hate speech" since it gives the right a vast listening audience and the EU Courts wouldn't like this it all. It wouldn't be long before they ruled conservative radio talk show "hate" and have the programs banned. Their idea of "diversity" applies only Marxists, 3rd worlders, radical Muslims trashing and wanting to destroy Western Christian Civilization with the help of the self loating European elitist left. The new Europe has forgotten the ancient Greek concept of an open public debate of ideas and opinions.

11 August 2012 at 15:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John Magee: "For those who do believe no explanation is necessary."

Oh I understand that. Of course, we hear the same thing said with all sincerity from Mormons, JWs, Muslims of various types, and Hindus as well as Christians. Necessarily, some or perhaps all of you are very wrong, nevertheless. Bear that in mind.

11 August 2012 at 15:55  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

Religion is environmental.

Spirituality is universal.

Atheism is an aquired point of view.

Bear that it mind

11 August 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Spirituality is universal."

Self-awareness, really.

Do you have any more twee, pseudo-profound snippets to present? We may as well get them all out in the open while we're here.

11 August 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

I've always thought atheist's believed that humans are worthless. We are a just a bundle of self aware atoms who consume food, reproduce, breath oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide, and leave behind us mountains of waste material. Then we die.

The dictionary says spirituality is belief in an ultimate immaterial reality.

We Christians believe that we are here to help others and love God who created us.

Here's something I read years ago:

"Religion exists if for no other reason than to instill individual responsibility and promote public morality"

Can you give religion at least that much credit?

What is the purpose of atheism for the individual and society in a few simple words and what hope does it offer you?

Thank you.

11 August 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John Magee: "I've always thought atheist's believed that humans are worthless."

Then you are incredibly, astonishingly stupid and ignorant. That's not abuse for abuse's sake.

"What is the purpose of atheism for the individual and society in a few simple words and what hope does it offer you?"

And where does one even start with something like that?

11 August 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

You started with insulting me: "Then you are incredibly, astonishingly stupid and ignorant"

You made my point in a few simple words. Thank you

11 August 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You may be ignorant and stupid, as demonstrated by your own words, but you're still not worthless to this atheist.

11 August 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There's so-called negative and positive versions of atheism but neither claims that humans are worthless. Atheists who hold positive-atheism to be true must, I think, consider our reality, including humans, to be without purpose and meaning at the universal level but that's something rather different to saying that humans are worthless.

What's the 'purpose of atheism' for individuals and society? There is not purpose. Atheism of any type is essentially a-theism. Atheists are without a belief in a god or gods. It's not a political system and it doesn't make grand statements in itself about individuals or societies.

One of the purposes of Tom Daley at the moment, as an individual, is to win a medal at the Olympics, either in London or in Rio. After that, who knows? Possibly not even him. One of the main purposes of a society is to free people up from the demands of simply staying alive. It allows us as a society to become more than the sum of our individual parts. I'll ignore the hope thing as that just sounds like the stuff the religious put out to justify their beliefs to themselves.

11 August 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJ0 said...

I suppose I'm very biased but I'd rather our public broadcaster stick mainly to mainstream stuff and leave the full-on god stuff to satellite channels. I've seen enough of the God Channel not to want to see it when I'm channel-surfing.

If the Beeb did offer full on stuff then I suppose they'd need to offer stuff on Hindu and Muslim stuff too in order to be seen to be fair.

Nobody is asking the BBC to copy God TV. All we are asking is that the commentators should open their eyes and ears and notice what the winning athletes themselves say after (and in some cases also before) their victories.

11 August 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Colin Weeden said...

The best argument for keeping sport and religion entirely separate is Marion Jones. When she 'won' the 100 metres in Sydney, she told the watching world that "there's only one person to thank, and that's Jesus".

Sadly Jesus was not available for comment. But while I am not aware of a passage in the New Testament pertaining to steroid abuse, I take it that he would not have wished to have been associated with drug cheats.

Save it for church.

11 August 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJo @ 18.00 says, 'I'll ignore the hope thing as that just sounds like the stuff the religious put out to justify their beliefs to themselves.'

But that's the point, you can't ignore 'the hope thing'. It's that spirit of optimism and wonder that every one of us enjoys every day and which carries us forward. Without hope you may as well stay in bed and simply overdose on the barbituate of your choice.

11 August 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee

A word to the wise, if I may.

Our little adversary DanJ0 has a basic strategy on the blog. He targets those with clear Christian beliefs in heterosexuality and firm opposition to the homosexual movement. These are generally Catholics or the occassional Calvinists.

His 'moves' in the 'forum chess' he delights in playing are:

- An initial lecture on secularism, liberalism and tolerance of all lifestyles that cause no apparent personal injury or harm;

- An exposition on atheist position that all religion is repressive and intolerant because it indoctinates and restricts human freedom;

- Arguing all religious faiths are invalid because there are so many worshipping different gods;

- Personal ridicule and insult with a view to provoking responses he can label homophobic or facist;

- Seeking out private information about your family life and career so he can use this against you at a later date.

At the end of his 'game' you will be described either as incapable of conducting a philosophical debate, a repressed homosexual, a dirty old man, a homophobe or having values akin to those at the time of the Inquisition.

So there we have it. He'll come back now with an attack on my integrity and honesty. Just thought you should know as he does it for 'silent reader' and loves to play the victim.

11 August 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "Without hope you may as well stay in bed and simply overdose on the barbituate of your choice."

The hope there is of a continuing life after one's death. A sort of hanging on by one's fingertips to something that has a natural end. No point staying in bed, with or without barbituates, when this may be all the life one has. Better to make the best of it, I think.

11 August 2012 at 22:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "He'll come back now with an attack on my integrity and honesty."

No, new strategy. I'll just ignore your usual Saturday night trolling instead. G'night. ;)

11 August 2012 at 22:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Colin Weeden

The best argument for keeping sport and religion entirely separate is Marion Jones.

Well, yes, except for the fact that it's not an argument at all. If the potential for hypocrisy was a legitimate reason to keep a subject out of public view, then there would be no subjects fit for public view. So what are you really saying with this 'argument' of convenience. Hrmmm, let's examine the following:

Save it for church.

Which translated means ...

"Keep it some place where I am not, so I don't have to listen to it."


11 August 2012 at 22:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Shucks, forgot that one. DanJ0 also labels one a "troll".

12 August 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan, if you take the atheist world view down to the bare bones the it really couldn't care less about humanity.
For starters, we are part of a cosmic accident. There is nothing special about how we came to exist, no rhyme or reason for us being here. The atheist worldview is simply tha pt we are here as a result of either an eternally repeating cycle (mutiverse theory in a nutshell) or from a "Big Bang" that seemingly had no cause, it simply happened (please note, I am not wanting to start a debate on TBB, merely setting the parameters for my argument).
Then we have the simple fact that we will, eventually, cease to exist as a species. Either we will die out and be replaced, the sun will swallow up the earth and kill us or, if humans manage to escape the solar system before this happens, we will be wiped out when the universe collapses.
Given that atheists view there to be no life after death, that we are in existence by accident and our existence is ultimately meaningless, how can anyone say that atheism values humanity?

12 August 2012 at 02:09  
Blogger CSPB said...

The Way of Dodo the Dude said...
Shucks, forgot that one. DanJ0 also labels one a "troll".

His posts are legion

12 August 2012 at 04:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "Dan, if you take the atheist world view down to the bare bones the it really couldn't care less about humanity."

No. That's the point I'm making. It suits some people to equivocate, loosely or directly, between there being no universal meaning or purpose, and individuals having no meaning or purpose in life for atheists. I think it genuinely bewilders some people that many of us can live quite happily yet expect to cease to exist at some point. For others, there's something disingenuous going on by trying conjure up a lack of valuing; a sort of dehumanising of us for political reasons.

"Given that atheists view there to be no life after death, that we are in existence by accident and our existence is ultimately meaningless, how can anyone say that atheism values humanity?"

That's a non sequitur. Atheism is essentially just a position about a belief in the existence of a god or gods. If there is no human-centric theistic being then purpose and meaning are necessarily local things.

I'm an atheist and I value humanity very highly. We're an astonishing species, capable of wonderful things. I value my own life, and the human condition contains self-awareness and empathy, so by extension I value the lives of others. Just because there isn't an external meaning-giver, it doesn't mean that there isn't a huge amount of value assigned within the system. Atheism has no necessary effect on that.

I don't know if you have ever lost close friends or relatives in your life. As a youth leader, I suppose you are relatively young so perhaps you haven't. My parents and grandparents are all dead now. Aside from the loss of personal relationships, the thing that stands out most for me is the loss of all that accumulated experience and the loss of the acquired personalities. Those are hugely valuable things in themselves.

It also extends to companion animals too, you know. When animals, or at least mammals who are modified by our attentions, are freed from the daily striving for life, they acquire distinct personalities. To some degree, they are 'little people'. When they die, it's not just the value of a companion to their carers that is lost, it's experience and personality in itself.

12 August 2012 at 07:49  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

But Dan, your value of humanity is worthless. If you are merely a speck in time that will have no ultimate discernible impact on anything then your opinions are worthless, as are the things that you value.
The very essence of atheism is nihilistic. The fact that atheists try to deny this shows that they are clearly searching for meaning in life as much as theists, but by denying the possibility of the eternal they make meaning impossible.

The problem atheists will always have is that, when you boil it down to the basics, life for them is a mere happenstance in the fluke of existence. Any meaning that is placed in the temporal has no lasting impact in the eternal and is therefore, ultimately, worthless. To suggest otherwise is to suggest there is more to life than atheism allows for.

12 August 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "But Dan, your value of humanity is worthless."

Worthless to whom? Or to what? That's what you are trying to slip in here.

"If you are merely a speck in time that will have no ultimate discernible impact on anything then your opinions are worthless, as are the things that you value."

I have discernable impact on people every single day. My opinions matter locally. The things I value are treated differently because I value them.

All you're really saying is that without a value-giver which is external to the system, there is no value other than that we we give stuff ourselves. It's just a truism. And I, of course, agree. It bothers you, it doesn't bother me, and I think it bothers you that it doesn't bother me or people like me.

"The very essence of atheism is nihilistic."

Nihilism is another often misused word in this. We're almost forced to adopt a Nietsche-like demeanor and despair because it suits religionists that we should do so. Well, no thanks. I don't try to deny that there's no objective meaning or purpose at all, I say it myself again and again.

"The problem atheists will always have is that, when you boil it down to the basics, life for them is a mere happenstance in the fluke of existence. [...]"

That you label it a problem for us is more about your religious views than anything else, you know. Like many people, I assume that life as we know it has evolved as a result of natural selection. I doubt very much that it has been directed and I think there's lots of evidence to suggest that it hasn't.

"[...] Any meaning that is placed in the temporal has no lasting impact in the eternal and is therefore, ultimately, worthless."

You just reiterate what I say myself there. That's exactly it. Only, you use "worthless" as though you need to bundle it up with notions of "not worth living". Well, I think life is well worth living as a general rule. In fact, it's bloody marvellous if you have the eyes to see it.

"To suggest otherwise is to suggest there is more to life than atheism allows for."

It's you who is suggesting otherwise. I embrace the fact. Meaning, value, purpose ... they're all local things. Only, they're grounded to some extent in the human condition rather than floating completely free.

12 August 2012 at 10:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, DanJ0, is the Inspector right in as much that you cannot comprehend a creator because he did not provide the human race with room service. Instead, we have to engage our hides and do everything ourselves with what has been provided. That includes suffering illness and disease. Had very same conversation with a chap in a country pub yesterday. Came at the Inspector like a boxing kangaroo, so he did...

12 August 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "I say, DanJ0, is the Inspector right in as much that you cannot comprehend a creator because he did not provide the human race with room service."

No. Stuff like our appendix and coccyx and other vestigiality, if that's what you are talking about.

I can of course comprehend the notion of a creator. I just think it's unlikely to care especially much about our species. It seems much more likely to me that we've created a theistic god to suit ourselves out of our collective hubris.

Contrary to what one or two people here might say about Aquinas, I don't think we can even say that our universe has been directly created by a Prime Mover even if one takes the view that there is such a thing.

12 August 2012 at 12:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. The Inspector did use the truth yesterday that those who believe have to accept two conditions. First, a creator. Personally, never had problems with that one. Second, that such a creator is benign and actually cares about his intellectual achievement, the present human race, by individual. To the Inspector, that’s the real test – to believe that we are not some sort of planetary entertainment for the divine. A war game on a global scale. To please a creator that feeds off the human condition and suffering. It doesn’t help when one sees His muslim creation waving their semi automatics around in a frenzy whenever a camera is on them...

12 August 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. No. Stuff like our appendix and coccyx and other vestigiality, if that's what you are talking about.

Not quite. One is thinking of David Attenborough who refuses to accept a loving God that allows a worm to eat into the eyeball of a ten year old African child, sending him blind...

12 August 2012 at 13:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, Attenborough's worm gives him difficulty over design because the worm has either evolved or been designed specifically to eat eyeballs. It's not the allowance of the damage that bothers him, it's that god has designed a worm to eat eyeballs.

12 August 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. One can’t credit a God being vindictive enough to create a human eyeball eating monster. One can credit Him with allowing a parasite to evolve that ate any eyeball it could get it’s teeth on. Now, surely a bit of basic hygiene would prevent infection ? Do you see the correlation with divine ‘room service’. God isn’t going around sweeping up nasty worms for us. He also expects the child to wipe himself too...{AHEM}...

12 August 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The inability of the observer to comprehend purpose is not evidence of the absence of purpose. The syllogism:

1. If God exists then X would not happen.

2. X happened.

3. God does not exist.

... is not a valid argument because the major premise is simply wrong. It presumes on the nature and purpose of God in all things. It assumes that God is first and foremost a 'bread king' whose primary interest with man is found in the outworking of this transient world. The man born blind would testify to the contrary.

It is of course only God who can give purpose to suffering. In the absence of God suffering becomes meaningless. The conversation reduces to "So a worm ate your eyeball. Bad luck for you." And nothing more. Because there is nothing more.


12 August 2012 at 14:00  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan, you have completely missed the point of what I was saying. It's nothing to do with a "value-giver", but the lack of an eternal significance to actions that make life ultimately worthless, from an atheistic perspective.

The atheistic view is that the universe will end, it came to be and nothing that we do in our lives has any effect for us after we die. And whilst it may effect the people around us, this is also ultimately worthless because they too will cease to be and there will be an end to things.

If the universe was eternal then actions would have worth as they would impact on the people around them, which would in turn impact on the people around them, and so on. However an eternally existing universe is not possible to the atheist as eternalism is one of the issues that atheists seem to have the existence of God.

12 August 2012 at 15:16  
Blogger DerekS said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 August 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "Dan, you have completely missed the point of what I was saying."

In which case, I am still completely missing your point I'm afraid.

12 August 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "One can credit Him with allowing a parasite to evolve that ate any eyeball it could get it’s teeth on."

Is that how you see the rest of creation before our species came about? That all the bits were allowed to happen rather than that they were intended by design? It seems, well, a bit less Catholic than I would expect.

12 August 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

Religion and politics don't mix well. That's true. Neither does atheism and politics. Look at the 150+ million people Marxist atheism is responsible for killing during the last century in the former USSR, Communist China,Laos, Tibet, Cambodia, South Viet Nam (after 1975), North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba and many other places where it gained power and oppressed people in the so called "enlightened" 20th century.

Is there an anti abortion atheist organization? Where are the atheist run hospitals, hospices, and charities?

Christains may have their faults and hypocrisies in the past but their record in the matters I just mentioned, and much more for the good of the human race since Pentecost, are well documented for the world to see.

12 August 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, now you are playing with ‘creation’ as an idea. Rather than see the creation of eye ball eating worms as on God’s list of things to make today, wouldn’t it be easier to see God as the initiator of life itself, albeit at the time single celled primitive. He also devised ‘evolution’ as a driving force. Of course, if man could knock up life at will in a laboratory, we might have to re-visit. But he can’t so we won’t...

12 August 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan - Atheist view is that life will end and that is it. Add that to all things in this universe ending (even if you go for the multiverse theory) and you have the ultimate destination of all actions and their impacts becoming nothing. Thus they have no worth because they are, ultimately, for naught. And this is regardless of our view on the existence of an external giver of worth.

Temporal oblivion (the fact that things in this existence will eventually all come to an end) removes all worth as all actions have a guaranteed end point to their impact on others.
Only an eternal existence (whether that were to be an eternal universe, an after life or whatever) gives true meaning as it means that our actions can have lasting impact.
Think of it as an extension of chaos theory: All actions impact everything else, no matter how small that impact is, and those reactions beget reactions and so on. Eternal continuation of the chain of reactions guarantees worth. A guaranteed end to the chain removes all worth.

12 August 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JM: "Neither does atheism and politics. Look at the 150+ million people Marxist atheism is responsible for killing [...]"

Atheism doesn't kill people. It simply means without a belief in a god or gods at its core. You're trying to equivocate using totalitarian instantiations, usually with a meglomanic in charge and with cult of personality, of a distinct political and economic philosophy.

"Is there an anti abortion atheist organization? Where are the atheist run hospitals, hospices, and charities?"

I'm a member of no atheist organisations and none of the people I know personally who are atheists are either. It's a bit like joining a not-golf club or a not-football club. I do, however, raise money for charities pretty much on a monthly basis. Only, I don't do it under the PR of a religious organisation. I'm sure lots of us do, you know. Including agnostics too.

12 August 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Rather than see the creation of eye ball eating worms as on God’s list of things to make today, wouldn’t it be easier to see God as the initiator of life itself, albeit at the time single celled primitive."

I'm happy enough with that. It's almost deism. At the risk of raising the dreaded H word, that rather puts a kibosh on the idea of Catholic sexual morality which is based on teleological thinking. Of course, there are Christians here who think they're in personal touch with a god who would profoundly disagree with you over the mechanism of creation.

12 August 2012 at 20:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 August 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "Thus they have no worth because they are, ultimately, for naught."

I've emphasised the word there because it is where the disconnection occurs, I think. Whether I behave well or not towards my fellows matters a great deal. I'm a (partly-)rational actor and I make decisions where I know or can guess the consequences. I must live with that, as must the people around me. That's where the main currency of worth exists. What happens in a few billion years time, on this planet or the possibly millions of others with life on them, is neither here nor there.

12 August 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

By the way, the Nietzsche/nihilism thing is actually a crisis of thinking for religionists of your type, to my way of thinking, rather than atheists. Christianity is in crisis here because the society that used to support it has changed and people now question its relevance. At its heart, it's just another human construction like any other, masquerading as something absolute and externally maintained, if I'm right.

12 August 2012 at 20:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, to be a Christian merely involves accepting the Christ, and following his lead. Of course, man in his wisdom has embellished the message, but the bottom line never alters...

12 August 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger CSPB said...


Excellent comment. One minor point: I think you meant to say that the argument is unsound. The form of the argument is valid (Validity does not require that the premises be true but soundness does).


12 August 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

If it really is neither here nor there in the distant future then surely is neither here nor there in the present. Worth does not diminish over time, actions either have it or they don't.

12 August 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

To be honest, I still don't get what you're actually trying to say if it's not the sort of line that Mr Jacobs usually follows. But hey, it doesn't really matter. I can tell you for sure though, I'm not worrying about the worth of my actions as regarded in several billion years time. I doubt many people are. There's no "surely" about it.

13 August 2012 at 06:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can 'the God of love' have created an 'eyeball eating worm' asks Danjo (and others)

Jesus Christ (the perfect representation of God)came to heal the sick, raise the dead,and to comfort the broken hearted.Does this sound like 'Danjo`s God'. Well certainly not to me.
So If God`s Creation was perfect (as God declared) what went wrong?.
When man rebelled against the Creator the Creation' went wrong.Sin entered the World and with it death, disease and and corruptions within the genetic codes.Man is discovering that sickness and death are actually corruptions(sin)within genetic information.
Sin has so corrupted Creation that it cannot be redeemed God must start again and make a New Creation, this has begun with Man. God has Created 'a New Man' out of the ruins of the Old Man at Calvary.The Cross of Calvary stands as a point in time between the 'old Creation and the New Creation.We either come under the 'headship'of the rebel Adam or to the obedient (to the point of death) Christ.

This present Creation is under sentence of death as it cannot be
redeemed it will be purified by fire and a new creation will replace it.

Man either belongs to the old Adamic Creation (under sentence of Death) or the' New Creation' in which all things will be gathered together under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

So the answer to who created the 'eyeball eating worm' and all parasitic creatures ,death, disease,corruptions within genetic information,who opened this veritable 'pandora`s` box?......we did when we embarked on the madcap scheme of becoming' our own god' and placed ourselves under the jurisdiction of the enemy of the God of Creation and allowed him(satan) to pour his death disease and corruption into our once perfect World.

God`s redemption process has started with man and will be continued to completion , the World awaits the New Creation and all the present 'natural disasters' are the winding up of one Creation awaiting the birth of another.

When this present Creation ends we will either meet Christ as Saviour or Judge the time to decide which is now.

13 August 2012 at 07:39  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

So, Dan, are you saying that in a billion years time your actions will have no worth? Or, indeed, are you saying that the actions of humans in the distant past have no worth?

13 August 2012 at 08:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Whether I behave well or not ...

The reader should note once again the chimera of an objective standard slipped into the sentence. He equates 'well' with 'according to my own moral light.' Yet he insists on using the former word because it gives the illusion of binding conduct. The man who sets his own limits isn't bound by anything for he can change them at will.

... towards my fellows matters a great deal.

Matters to whom? The verb must have a direct object. Said actions cannot matter in any objective sense because there is no objective truth to give them gravity.

Do they matter to himself? Well of course his actions matter to himself. That is simply a truism. To others? Yes his actions matter to others? But that is also just a truism. Neither statement says anything unique or morally significant. What he wants to imply is that "He is bound by the fact that his actions matter to others." But the harsh reality is that his moral system provides no such boundary. He alone determines what matters. He alone determines the limits of his behavior regarding its impact on others. Any decision he might make is correct for there is no standard by which to judge correctness or incorrectness. So long as he has the power to enforce his preferences, then he is free to act or not act as he sees fit.

I'm a (partly-)rational actor and I make decisions where I know or can guess the consequences.

But he alone determines whether the consequences matter, or whether the benefit to himself is worth the consequences to others. Always he returns to the self, because that is the only place he can go. He is free to make any decision he likes and impose any consequences he has the power to impose in order to acquire any benefit he desires.

I must live with that, as must the people around me.

More to the point, the people on whom he would act must live with it. But they enter the equation only to the extent he allows them to enter the equation. Nothing forces the actor to take any consideration of those acted upon.

That's where the main currency of worth exists.

Which is worthless currency. One man issues it. He alone assigns the value at will. Only he can redeem it. It has no value to anyone but to him. This has always been the problem. A moral system that cannot find a reference anywhere but within the self is not a moral reference. It is an arbitrary collection of behaviors.

DanJ0, I don't believe you will truly understand what we are saying until the moral 'untidiness' of your system is no longer outside your door but within it. When it is no longer abstract but is instead realized, then you will comprehend what it means to stand alone in a morally naked universe. But you have money, and leisure, and security, and prosperity. With these things you purchase the luxury of atheism. If you would be deprived of this capital, the moral world you inhabit would look very different to you, and you would not be using 'untidy' to describe it.


13 August 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dan JO

Because of The USSR's Marxist atheist ideology tens of Millions of people were arrested or shot or sent to Soviet labor camps specifically because they were Either Orthodox Christians or other believers. Please read research articles on the internet about the Communist Chinese persecution of the Tibetans after after the Red Army occupied that country in 1950. At least 100,000 Tibetan Buddhists were murdered. Out of 6,259 Buddhist Monasteries in Tibet in 1950 only 8 remained by 1976. The Dalai Lama fled Tibet to India in 1950. Why?... I have plenty of other examples of the persecution of believers in the last century by atheistic Communism if you care for me to share them with you... Communist atheist Cuba only opened up to allow minimal religious freedom after Pope John Paul's visit there in 1997. Castro allowed Christmas to finally be celebrated openly in Cuba in 1997. I want atheist's to have the freedom to chose not to believe but the record of atheism when it gets power is to persecute believers. The 20th century is proof.

13 August 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Christ, I'm relegated to the third person for our Calvinist now. Things must be bad over there.

13 August 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JM: "Please read research articles on the internet about the Communist Chinese persecution of the Tibetans after after the Red Army occupied that country in 1950."

I've talked in person to survivors and their families in the refuge camps that still exist in Nepal. There's some grandmothers near you who I'm sure would love to be taught how to suck eggs by an ignorant fringe-right-winger if you're on a roll there.

For the rest, I note again your attempts to blur atheism and the explicitly communist political ideologies of the 20th century. You're not getting away with that, not least because it's well-worn and discredited technique.

13 August 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I'm relegated to the third person

It served my purpose to emphasize the switch to first person in the last paragraph.


13 August 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "So, Dan, are you saying that in a billion years time your actions will have no worth? Or, indeed, are you saying that the actions of humans in the distant past have no worth?"

Is there really any need for me to explain the implications of an atheist take on our reality any further? I'm waiting for the dénouement of this strand, or at least something more meaningful about why this is a problem for atheists, if you're not actually following the line Mr Jacobs has taken a number of times in the past.

Look, if the universe is properly deterministic then every single particle interaction in the past contributes to the the future. But perhaps that's not truly the case. That said, worth is about value and the concept of value requires a conscious valuer. If there is no consciousness in the universe in future then there will be no value left, assuming that there isn't an consciousness external to our reality of course. However, today, there are billions of valuers on our planet valuing things and doing stuff of worth. How many different ways can I say it?

13 August 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "It served my purpose to emphasize the switch to first person in the last paragraph."

Well, in that case, enjoy your silent dialogue with your reader. I find it too offensive to bother engaging with it. On yer bike.

13 August 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len at 07:39

Calm down lad. Mankind even from his simplest form is only a couple of million of years old. One suspects that parasitic worms were around in dinosaur days (65 million).

How can man have ‘rebelled’ ? He spent nearly all his time trying to survive. And rebel against what ? Was he conscious of a rebellion ?

If God is disappointed with man, it is his own divine fault as such. We are His creation so we are told. He could have increased our average IQ by 20%. That would have made a tremendous difference, but He didn’t.

Look, that tosh you came out with might have impressed the impressionable from a couple of millennia ago, but we do have science now. Death, disease, suffering and natural disasters are all part of the package we have been given. If we don’t like it, and we don’t, we can do something about it, and we are.

13 August 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


1. Your concept of offensiveness is curious given how you post. What I did is certainly not an ethical violation in any blog-world I have ever inhabited, but, as you wish.

2. I actually gave up on having dialogues with you weeks ago.

3. I don't have a bike.



13 August 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

If worth is of no specific value, actions can be equally of worth AND worthless. Pretty sure that leads us back to nihilism...

13 August 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "I actually gave up on having dialogues with you weeks ago."


Actually, you give up on dialogue quite regularly, and not just with me, when it gets tough for your position. If I actually went through a deconstruction of your position, yet again, then you'd probably quietly disappear on another 'trip' or 'lose' another long post to the vagaries of Blogger and feel unable to retype it.

13 August 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "Pretty sure that leads us back to nihilism"

What's your problem with nihilism? The common depressing Nietzsche representation of it aside, I mean. I don't mind nihilism as a philosophical position, of course, just the stuff that rides in with the common understanding of Nietzche's views.

13 August 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger Jon said...

For what it's worth, I was sat in front of a group of loudly cheering and horn- tooting Iranians at the wrestling (I know, Inspector) cheering on their competitors in various sports, invoking the Muslim God in support of their team, and in evidence when they won. I wondered why, therefore, an Iranian hadn't won the 100m in place of Usain Bolt?

Incidentally, Inspector, bravo for your post at 18.39! Len - either God created the eyeball eating worm, or man did (which I find unlikely). The devil doesn't create things, does he? I thought that power was reserved for God? You can't have it both ways - either God created everything (including a worm to eat children's eyeballs) or he didn't, in which case, who did?

13 August 2012 at 19:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon. Another parasite on African humans is a worm that lives in the victims blood supply. This lad is fairly benign though, and one doesn’t believe it is as damaging as ‘eyeball’. It uses humans as part of it life's cycle, and you pick it up by drinking contaminated water from pools. Have actually seen footage where a surgeon cuts a vein in someone's leg, and these blighters are clearly visible as they spill out of the wound.

Not only has the worm and cycle been known about for decades, but so has the population known about it too from the aid agencies in the areas where it is prevalent. You might think that the worm in humans is now history thanks to this coverage. Think again. Never over-estimate the black’s ability to look after himself...

Oh yes, evolution created the worm, and God invented evolution. Cause and effect tells us that nothing comes about on it’s own...

13 August 2012 at 19:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inspector ,

I see you have completely discarded Genesis now .

Not altogether a surprise.

13 August 2012 at 19:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Purely allegorical old soul. And that’s the Carmelite position. And yet, there must have been some divine input into modern man. Really can’t see how evolution can account for the human mind – those of us who have one, that is...

13 August 2012 at 20:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you do not believe in a ' literal Genesis'then you cannot believe in a' literal Creation 'and you cannot trust God to tell you the truth which is the ultimate insult to a Holy God.
Also if there was no 'fall of man'then Jesus had no need to have suffered the agonies of Crucifixion all He had to do was to tell us to obey God and' try a bit harder'.
If there was no 'fall of man' then God has created death disease and inflicted immense suffering on the Human race (for what His amusement?)
Inspector your' god'is a god of chaos, suffering and disorder and is quite plainly not the God of the Bible your' god' is more like the Islamic 'allah' and to put it politely you can keep your god I will stick to mine!.
My God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob His name is Yahweh and His Son Is Yahshua you obviously know nothing of Him!.

13 August 2012 at 20:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, you realise that you are a Jew who accepts the Christ. And yes, they are around. One realises you cannot kiss the tip of your penis goodbye, but perhaps a loved one can do that for you...

Evil talking serpents indeed !

13 August 2012 at 20:45  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Does it matter (from a Christian vantage point) if Len is a Jew who is a Christian?

Although does using Hebrew words make Len anymore a Jew than you eating Lamb Madras make you an Indian?

I see Len as a gentile Evangelicalist like Rev Billy Graham. At least Len stands up for what he thinks is right, he may be very critical of the Catholic faith, but crucially he admits he does not have ALL of the answers ALL of the time. Somewhat refreshing on this blog where people have absolutes.

13 August 2012 at 21:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, our man is free to discuss his beliefs on this site. He actually does more than that – he also deprecates the position of others. He calls himself a Christian, but he is nothing more than a bible basher who alienates people. He’ll come on now and saw that Christ alienated people too – he’s bold enough to compare himself favourably with the son of God. He knows not humility as we do...

How about you, still wrestling with your dual identity of being Jewish by mother and Anglican by father ?

13 August 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Of course Len is a bible basher (I think I had more or less said that). But I am respectful of the fact he holds to his views, like you and Dodo do.

13 August 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Forgot to add, I have no problem with being a British Jew in the same way that presumably you have no problem with being a British Catholic?

13 August 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I know you enjoy a good 'set too' with Catholics, but let's be clear about the Church's position.

The Church has no dogmatic position on evolution. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing.

Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing"

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.

Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God".

So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

So far as Adam and Eve are concerned, it is impermissible to dismiss their story in Genesis as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own".

Catholics believe the story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques.

The Catechism states:

"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390)."

Trust this clarifies Catholic teaching for you.

13 August 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...

"If you do not believe in a 'literal Genesis' then you cannot believe in a' literal Creation 'and you cannot trust God to tell you the truth which is the ultimate insult to a Holy God."

I trust the above shows the nonsense of this statement. The Catholic Church learned not to dismiss reason and science and cling to fundalmentlism from from the Galileo affair.

14 August 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Just for you.

On science and religion the Catholic Church has always taught that:
"no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people"
(Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it:

"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are"
(CCC 159).

The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

"Reach for the Stars"!

14 August 2012 at 00:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Actually, you give up on dialogue quite regularly, and not just with me, when it gets tough for your position.

That's the DanJ0 we have come to know and expect.

You have never once presented a 'problem' for my position. I have never felt particularly threatened or pressed by anything you have ever said. I chose to end my participation for various reasons, but never because I feared I couldn't answer. It might shock you, but I feel no need to get the last word on my opponent.

1. Sometimes I discontinue because I have said all I want to say.

2. Sometimes because I don't think my opponent has made a very good response.

3. Sometimes because the thread has moved far on since my last post, and I don't want to re-introduce the topic.

4. Sometimes because I lose interest with a particular thread. This happens more often than you might think given the time lag for me between posts and responses.

5. Sometimes because I have decided to invest my time on another post elsewhere. I post on other blogs besides Cranmer.

6. Sometimes because I have a life elsewhere that includes a wife and children to whom I have obligations.

7. But mostly it's because I just don't want to invest the time and energy it takes me to make a serious post. I don't write particularly fast. A serious post can take me an hour. So my desire to run arguments all the way to ground has significantly waned in the last year or so. Posting is a zero-sum game after all. Time spent here is time not spent elsewhere.

It's funny you should mention the lost post on Calvinism. That is the easiest subject in the world for me to defend, because it's where I started. I have done it for a long time. There aren't very many objections I haven't heard, and people on weblogs don't normally invent new ones. But that also makes it a most tedious subject for me. That's why I didn't have the energy to repeat that post. It would have been a tedious hour of recreation and I just didn't want to do it.

If I actually went through a deconstruction of your position, yet again..

It would look like all your other efforts, and would phase me not at all.

...then you'd probably quietly disappear on another 'trip' or 'lose' another long post to the vagaries of Blogger and feel unable to retype it.

And this is why I decided to cease interacting with you. Because you attributed false motives to me without knowledge. And here you have done it again. I don't particularly like being called a liar. I have never lied on this board.

But as I said, that's the DanJ0 I have come to know and expect.


14 August 2012 at 00:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl said ...
(to DanJ0)
"I actually gave up on having dialogues with you weeks ago."

Very sensible. Thankfully, you continue to expose the hollowness of his philosophical position.

One notes (again) his insidious personal attacks on others and, in particular, his reference to your lost post to Albert on predestination. As I've said before, he stores such things for future use and twists them for his own purposes. No doubt all for the 'silent reader' he supposedly holds so dear.

Maybe it's time you considered another strategy. Your current one has been exposed for what it is - sanctimonious bulls*it.

14 August 2012 at 01:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You were out of the starting blocks like Usain Bolt there, Dodo. ;)

14 August 2012 at 06:07  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The Inspector has been talking of the kissing of the tip of len's penis goodbye.I hold you entirely responsible Danjo for being a bad influence on the mentally fragile Inspector for these sinful and unwholesome utterances.

14 August 2012 at 06:27  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan, earlier on you rejected nihilism (the negation of meaning) and now you have said you are fine with it. Forget you not knowing what I am going on about, you clearly don't know what you are on about!

14 August 2012 at 09:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta, I've rejected a common interpretation of nihilism which is associated, especially by religionists, with some sort of inevitable despair or existential angst. I don't see how anyone reading the thread from top to bottom could ignore the fact that I've said time and again that there is almost certainly no universal meaning or purpose or values as far as I am concerned. I have asked you why you see this as a problem for atheists and, other than that you seem to have a preference for some sort of order yourself, you don't seem to be able to tell me so far. I assumed you were just following Mr Jacob's usual line, which I can readily deconstruct [1] but you have told me I have completely missed your point. I am genuinely trying, and failing, to see where you are going with this.

[1] In form, I mean, to show the assumptions and weaknesses. I'm not saying it is rubbish by any means.

14 August 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan, the problem with you believing that there is no universal meaning is that you declare that your own views are worth something simply by saying that other people are incorrect.
By saying that you, by necessity, declare your own view to be superior. Yet by doing so you declare that there is meaning to what you say. If what you say has meaning now it has meaning in the future. If it has no meaning in the future then it is worthless now. It is a VERY simple, black and white situation that you are trying to suggest, falsely, has shades of grey. Something either has worth/value/meaning or it doesn't. This does not mean that you have to agree in the existence of an external "value-giver". All it means is that value is either there or not.

14 August 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta, I think you'll that I deliberately allow for the possibility of a god or gods existing, and that I have very little to say about things like the origins of the universe. My position is a negative-atheistic one.

Compare and contrast that with the religionist one where the existence of god is asserted to be objectively true despite it being a matter of mere personal belief. It wouldn't be quite so bad if it were a binary choice of god existing or not, but there are multiple god hypotheses to choose from at any given time.

Moreover, the religious aren't usually content with some sort of unknown creator. They build a vast upside down pyramid of human-centric detail on the mere possibility of a creator existing. On top of that, they usually expect the rest of us to fall in behind their directives and assertions and judgements whether we like it or not. The nature of their assertion essentially tries to avoid questioning of the detail by defining it as absolute and universal and timeless despite our experiences to the contrary.

The most simple and economic explanation is that our shared reality, including the human condition, is as we collectively find it. We know there are unanswered questions which we strive to answer, and we expect there are questions to whch we may never find answers.

Yet we are alive today and we need to determine how we are to carry on. I don't much care how the religious choose to live their own lives, provided they don't cause significant harm to others. I expect the same in return.

This is what is being offered. That is, here are the premises, this is what we know, here is the reasoning, these are the consequences, this is how we order our society, and so on. Accept it or reject it, intelligently and freely.

As far as I am concerned, I think I am the best person to decide what's best for me and I am willing to take responsibility. Furthermore, I think you ought to decide for yourself too and take responsibility. This is the essence of liberalism. We are not certain enough to force people into uniform lifestyles, or to deny them a choice, because we claim to have a plan for life.

14 August 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I think the main thrust of your comments don't really follow coherently either, as it goes. It looks fundamentally wrong to me.

14 August 2012 at 14:29  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan, you might want to read the quote in the first paragraph from this link:

Flew clearly had a view about a god existing and was seeking evidence to suggest who or what that god was. He placed no beliefs upon this god other than the fact that he believed one to exist.
As such, the first decision to be made is always the black or white one of "does a god exist?" Once you get beyond that you start either looking at the various "options" there are or merely stick to the evidence-based method and await what information might come to you. So your premise on the idea of whether God exists is clearly flawed.

As to your failure to grasp the very basic concept of value/worth, if what I have said already leaves you stumped then I don't see there is anything more I can type that will help. I have put it in child language at times, so I feel like you may simply be claiming it makes no sense because you have no argument against it and dislike this fact and so decide to try and make out I am talking nonsense. Which is a shame if this is true (and certainly your reaction to Carl's posts would suggest this) as it means you aren't here to engage intellectually, merely attempt to batter people's arguments for kicks.

14 August 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've tried to be polite with you and consider what you're trying to say. I've also been prepared to try different interpretations of worth and value, despite Magee's initial scene-setting, in case we're talking at cross-purposes. However, I think you've put yourself beyond politeness now, writing that up there.

14 August 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Initially, you were misunderstaning the nature of atheism. I think you were begging the question shortly after. Your claim about my denying and then accepting nihilism is clearly just bollocks. Finally, you're into non sequitur territory and some snottiness. Not great. No wonder you're a fecking Christian.

14 August 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, some curmudgeon round here needs to walk on the sunny side of the street once in a while...

What !

14 August 2012 at 18:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo if you ever get a revelation of the total hypocrisy of your religion (and some of your statements on this blog) it would be quite interesting to see what your reaction would be.

Inspector..... I try to refrain from calling people 'idiots' but I am prepared to make an exception in your case.

Danjo Why on Earth do Atheists get so worked up about God ?.After all He doesn`t exist or can you be totally sure of that?.

14 August 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

....and you Len, are bloody well unhinged if you actually believe the dross you post...

14 August 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo Why on Earth do Atheists get so worked up about God ?.After all He doesn`t exist or can you be totally sure of that?."

As explained earlier, there are different types of atheism and I'm a negative-atheist so no, I'm not totally sure of that.

Also, I don't get worked up about god at all. If I have any sort of issue there then it's because its advocates and their attempts to intrude on the freedom of others.

Hope that helps.

14 August 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len, if you're still struggling then you might want to consider why some fringe right-wing Christians get so worked up about the Muslim god if it doesn't exist as they believe.

14 August 2012 at 19:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 'god'of this World does exist he has many names.

That is why I call the God of Creation the God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob,( to avoid confusion)

14 August 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, as a right wing Christian, the Inspector finds your comment about being ‘worked up’ about the muslim god somewhat obtuse. It’s the muslim himself we are concerned with. He can worship a sack of sick for all this one cares...

14 August 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, there is only one ‘god of this world’ and that is human self indulgence. So, don’t get all cryptical about it as you are no OT prophet – that’s for sure...

14 August 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "It’s the muslim himself we are concerned with."

Which is actually the point I was making, really. I'm not getting worked up about a god in which I have no belief. It's its followers. Or more correctly, some of its followers.

14 August 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, you would do well to mistrust any foreign influences brought into the country, the Inspector excepted of course {AHEM}. Other foreign influences to be wary of include socialism, a Jewish idea based on the premise that people deserve to be seen by their political masters as to be unable to s__t without their assistance...

This post dedicated to ‘socialist’ Christians everywhere...

14 August 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


socialism, a Jewish idea

Ummm ... what? Who told you Socialism is a "Jewish idea?"


14 August 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len said...

"Dodo if you ever get a revelation of the total hypocrisy of your religion (and some of your statements on this blog) it would be quite interesting to see what your reaction would be."

Why have you assumed I have not had an encounter with Christ and a revelation about the truth of Catholicism?

I am trying to be polite towards you but find it very, very difficult.

Please refrain from silly and childish comments and discuss my post on creation and evolution and point out where, in your opinion, it falls short. I take it you are a literal creationist. This contradicts logic and reason.

I take it your brief exploration with Greek Orthodoxy is over. What next? Messianic Christianity, is it?

14 August 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Interesting, there is some truth in the proposition that the communist version of socialism had its roots in Marx's combination of Kantian dialectic and Isaiah's vision of the Kingdom of God.

His very early writings, before he teamed up with Engels, best illustrates this. Of course Marx completely perverted both ideas, turning Kant's idealism into materialism and representing Isaiah's Messiah by the proletariat.

15 August 2012 at 00:04  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan, what did I say that warranted such an obtuse response? Either has been some misunderstanding of what I typed or I was right and you have run out arguments and resorted to bullying and rudeness.

15 August 2012 at 01:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said...
"I've tried to be polite with you and consider what you're trying to say."

Have you now? And goodness me, how magnanimous the man is! Condescension is such a fine quality. So patronising; so superior.

"However, I think you've put yourself beyond politeness now, writing that up there."

Ah, here it comes. The philosopher is about to make the next move in the 'game' of 'forum chess'.

"No wonder you're a fecking Christian."

Actully, the 'criticism' of being a Christian is a compliment - minus the abusive adjective.

When all else fails - personal abuse.

15 August 2012 at 02:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


But how does that make Socialism a 'Jewish idea?' It originated in post-"enlightenment" Western Europe.


15 August 2012 at 02:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "When all else fails - personal abuse."

Unintended irony? You've been trying to start a fight with me pretty much on a nightly basis recently, with no success at all. That must be quite frustrating for you, I think. ;)

15 August 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. One was of course alluding to Marxism, but it doesn’t matter whether the man was a secular Jew or not. The important issue here is that socialism is thoroughly un-English. It is not a suitable device for any country. It has caused a malaise in the lower parts of our society that we may never fully remove now. For example, the Inspector’s bin at work is now emptied daily by a charming Brazilian girl. None of the cleaning team are English. Our indigenous idlers are putting their feet up, maintained by our taxes, rather than going out and earning their living. Note those last three words. The rest of the world does it, and so should we, so out the window socialism must go…

Perhaps the worst influence socialism has is on the education sector, but we’ll save that for another day…

15 August 2012 at 18:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I feel I must spell this out for you.

If you had any sort of revelation from God about Catholicism you would not still be a Catholic.Hence no revelation has been given.

You obviously do not regard scripture as truth because you
completely disregard it or only allow the Catholic Church to 'interpret' scripture for you and accept any 'version' they brainwash you with.

You are merely a 'puppet ' dancing whenever your strings are pulled.

15 August 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suppose I ought to set out something about nihilism, relative morality, and atheism in case some of the contents of this thread are raised again in the future, and given that dialogue has apparently ended. The three things are related to some extent.

The stuff up there from Mr Jacobs about what matters, and to whom, and measured by what criteria could have been pretty much lifted from Karen Carr about nihilism, and also reiterates his usual patter about relative morality.

Whatever the quality of the specific argument made, there's something unstated coming along for the ride. It doesn't really deny that there may well be no absolute morality at all and that meaning and purpose may well be just human constructs after all. It’s about preferences and desires.

The lack of a universal meaning and purpose for humanity is nominally less attractive than a cosmic master plan. An absolute morality is tidier than relative morality and, if one can actually convince people of it, it provides an ideal to follow and a justification for control. That is what is being said.

But the ultimate question here is surely: What is actually true? It is entirely plausible that we are just a consequence of the universe being as it is. Where's the evidence for there being an absolute morality in place? Why should there be a meaning and purpose for humanity?

What is being said up there is that he has a preference for tidiness, that he feels more comfortable with the idea that people who behave badly get their comeuppance in another reality even though they appear to prosper at times in ours, and that he needs some hope to get through his life.

It's just an appeal for an illusion of order when all is said and done. Unfortunately, it may well be that nihilism is the nature of our reality and that relative morality, or more likely some sort of hybrid based on the human condition, is all we have to work with in deciding how we go on.

This is just a clash of ideas, not a rebuttal of one or the other position in either direction. The religious position here makes claims about human nature, in common with other political philosophies, and tries to draw up some sort of Grand Plan for how we all ought to live. The justification for it is merely an assertion when all is said and done. In that, it doesn't really differ from (say) Marxism.

The opposing position, at least one of them anyway, is really that there isn't a sort of cosmic Grand Plan for us after all and so we must construct ways to live for ourselves instead. Of course, it still makes a claim about collective human nature and builds on that. That is, that we are individuals with some differing natures, and therefore we have potentially disparate plans.

We form societies because we of course share some aspects of our nature but we're also products of those societies. The result is that there will always be a tension between the individual and society, even in very ordered societies. The liberal view is that individuals ought to have some political autonomy to match their semi-autonomous natures.

Of course, we have a range of different religious versions of a Grand Plan from which to choose. One of them might even reflect the truth. Or, alternatively, all of them may just be human constructions if nihilism in the technical sense is a true description of our reality. None of us really knows. We just follow our preferences when all is said and done.

15 August 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As far as morality is concerned, I'm always very conscious of an unstated assumption: that there is a single morality to be found which describes how we ought to live. That needn't actually be the case, though people seem to want it to be. There's also usually an unstated assumption that values are somehow reducible to an ordered set. That needn't be the case either, I think. In fact, I think those two things are probably related.

15 August 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, it’s called anarchy of the mind. Mankind makes it up as we go along. Seen a lot of that in the last forty years. We don’t know where we are headed, and it’s thanks to the mind set you so cheerfully lay before us...

15 August 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

It doesn't make socialism a "Jewish" idea at all! However, it was an idea from a man raised in Judaism and this had an influence on its construction.

The point I was making was that the teleological Jewish belief about an earthly Messianic Kingdom where peace would reign was perverted by Marx and combined with a materialist, dialectical world view.


Pick a fight with you? Goodness, what an ego you really have! I am simply pointing out to others the general and often underhanded approach you adopt.

16 August 2012 at 01:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "We don’t know where we are headed, and it’s thanks to the mind set you so cheerfully lay before us..."

Well, there you go. I'm a nihilist yet I'm cheerfully embracing it. That must rub some fur up the wrong way for those who insist on despair. I'm quite happy that 'we' don't know where 'we' are headed as it goes. None of that dubious Grand Plan stuff, you see. I'm also quite happy with where we have ended so far too.

Once one claims a Grand Plan and puts people in place who claim authority on behalf of a god and a religion which is absolute and universal, the way is open for the Talebanisation of society for the rest of us. It's not as though it hasn't happened before here, and isn't happening now elsewhere.

There's no anarchy of mind in practice at all. We're products of our society and we are gregarious, self-aware, and empathic to varying degrees. The claim of 'anything goes' for atheists doesn't really hold water, does it? We're limited by our natures to some extent.

16 August 2012 at 18:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older