Hilarious: Dawkins Defining Nothing…editor
Seriously, how can any-body take these alleged atheists seriously? It’s a serious question. I managed to stop laughing long enough to ask it. So, when you’ve recovered from the illogical (and downright hilarious) Dawkins’ Definition of “nothing”, let’s hear your answer. O and don’t forget to comment on his acceptance of the “mysterious” in the origin of the universe. How on earth does that fit with his insistence on empirical scientific “evidence” (think the theory of ‘evolution’), not to mention his infamous mockery of the mysteries of Faith? He seems to be one mixed up gentleman, with the emphasis on “mixed up”. So, be serious, how can any-body take the likes of Richard Dawkins seriously? I don’t take him seriously at all. He is to science, what Trump & Clinton are to American politics, in my humble opinion. But what about you. Do you take Dawkins seriously?
That video was hilarious. Imagine a so-called intelligent man trying to define nothing as something. What a quack! I wonder if he purchased his doctorate online? It just shows the depth of idiocy atheists will stoop to to maintain their blind denial of the Creator. It beggars belief. I mean, the pagan philosophers, thousands of years ago, understood that the universe had a creator, as did every culture from the foundation of the world up to the 1950s when the loonies began to take control of the asylum. I would rather debate with an ape than with people like Dawkins, if only to feel that there was at least some form of brain activity going on in my opponents head. Better to debate with something than nothing, eh??
Yes, very true! In fact, I’d rather debate with a house plant!
As a wee aside, the TV programme “The Chase” was hilarious earlier on. A question came up about how long the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Apparently it is 179 million years. Bradley Walsh, being facetious, went on a rant about “how could we possibly know that it was 179 million years?” Anne, the chaser, grew exasperated and said, “We just need to trust that scientists know these things”. And they claim believers are brainwashed???
You are right, that video is indeed hilarious. But, how sad that Richard Dawkins could not understand why the audience were laughing. Only to be told by Cardinal Pell (Australia) that he found it funny him trying to define nothing. The mysterious something is nothing. Yet claim that there is no God. Oh dear, the man badly needs our prayers.
Your prayers won’t do any good.
I fear you are correct. Dawkins is so closed to the truth, and so obstinate in his error, that he is unlikely to respond to the grace of God offered to him in his soul. Christ does not force Himself on anyone. Notice, in the famous painting below, there is no handle on the outside. Only Dawkins can let God in – God never forces Himself on anyone.
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me”. Revelation 3:20
I have a feeling Essiep’s comment was from the perspective of an atheist…but I never realized before that there was no handle on the door in that famous painting. That is profound…
I agree that Essiep is probably an atheist.
I also agree that the William Holman Hunt painting is profound. It’s got enough meditative quality to last for weeks on end. It’s beautiful. Maybe it will make Essiep think to open the door of his heart and invite Jesus in.
Yes, I realised that Essiep wrote from the perspective of an atheist – a tad sarcastically – but hopefully that profound painting will make him/her think again. There’s, literally, “nothing” in atheism – they get to spend their lives talking about “something” or rather Someone whom they don’t think exists. A bit like you and I debating endlessly about, say, the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. What a waste of a life! I mean EVERYONE knows there’s a Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus – gimme strength! 😀
I have not watched the video yet, (will do so later), but for now wanted to comment that Dawkins is a circus act.
His infantile diatribes against religion did not have the aim of a genuine analysis or critique, but rather the intent was to achieve a form of celebrity for himself. It was a cry for attention.
He, for a brief period, achieved his aim of being a celebrity. I think he was then greatly irritated by the realisation that his ranting and raving had brought him more public attention than his academic work ever had. That must have been a real blow to his great ego, and a self-inflicted one at that.
Ordinary people knew him as a act – “Mad Richard, watch him shout and ball” – not for his work.
He has all but gone from the public eye now, having served the limited purpose the media had for him. I last heard of him foaming at the mouth after an Anglican person had said on twitter that they would pray for him, when he was diagnosed with an illness.
it is interesting how those who dismiss religion as ‘a crutch’ all have their own prominent crutches. Dawkins crutch seems to be the need for celebrity and adulation.
His deceased friend, Christopher Hitchins, was no better.. I thought it remarkable – and sadly hilarious – to hear Hitchins claim religion was a crutch for the weak. This, from a man who could not make it past lunchtime without recourse to alcohol. He was pathetic, really. Witty and articulate, yes, but no less pathetic for that.
Richard Dawkins is a mystery. He clearly has a brilliant scientific mind, for his own field, but seems to bs consumed by anger about religion. His notorious book “The God Delusion” was little more than a badly written diatribe which damaged his reputation as a scientist. Yet at times he could produce a book such as the “Blind Watchmaker” that was in a different league. I wonder what has happened to him to make him so incandescent about the idea of God.
Anyone who has that hatred of God most likely has a disastrous moral life lurking about in the background, about which the person feels guilty. There was a priest who had a great line about this fact. Would be good if someone could remember it for me.
I agree that with most militant atheists there’s probably a serious moral problem in their lives that causes them great trouble of conscience. No one can escape conscience, or the Commandments of God written in every heart, so they direct their self-loathing onto their Creator. That was certainly the conclusion Bishop Fulton Sheen reached in their regard.
I would sugesst perhaps bad conscience. That’s what makes most atheists rant against God.
I guess I must be a naive person, since I consider nothing to be nothing, and rather simply at that. And here I thought I was a sophisticated traditionalist…
Apparently there were some atheists around even in King David’s day, since Psalm 52 begins with:
“The fool said in his heart: There is no God. They are corrupted, and become abominable in iniquities: there is none that doth good.”
That video was a scream. I haven’t laughed as much in ages.
Richard Dawkins should think seriously about a creator God because his performance in that discussion made me wonder how anyone with such idiotic views could possibly have evolved from a clever ape – LOL!
Creation occurs in context. What is the context? Is the deity within the context? Is the context within the timeless, immutable deity?
Aseity faces the same problems as nothingness. Neither is a functional concept.
We cannot know these things; we cannot even form a viable proposition regarding them. Best to remain silent.
You’ll tie yourself up in knots trying to work out conundrums like that. Why not just look at nature and established scientific fact and accept what it tells us, which is that God exists and He created everything. It’s only when people try to take God out of the equation that all sense disappears and impossible, not to mention unintellible, propositions, such as the one you posted, start being published to the great detriment of the human intellect.
You mean the Idea that there is a Big Guy who lives in God-World, and in God-time conceived of and created our world and our time? And of course, I understand that divine concept formation, creation and time are merely analogous, though functionally identical, to concept formation, creation and time for us, which means that….which means that…uh-oh, a monumental snarl of yarn.
Well, you have Dawkins’ idiotic “nothing is something” declaration to fall back on for sanity!!
Oh, I agree with the fellow in the funny suit; nothingness is a non-concept. It does not merit explanation, any more than similar logical corollaries.
Dawkins is making a compound error: trying to answer a meaningless metaphysical question (how do you get something from nothing?) by redefining the terms so that the question actually means something.
If by the “fellow in the funny suit” you mean Cardinal Pell, please note that I always smile when I see so called “atheists” and “humanists” on TV discussions, serious faces and fixed smiles notwithstanding, telling us all how they “respect” people of faith blah blah. Not true, as you have just demonstrated – I’m presuming that you are not a person of any-but-scientific faith). But, the main point I want to make is that the “fellow in the funny suit” made a key, sensible point, while the fellow with the unkempt hairdo and the angry face continued to talk nonsense and had so little sense of humour that he couldn’t see that he was spouting nonsense, even with the help of a hall-full of people laughing at him. Priceless.
Well, I’m not one who respects uniforms of any sort. Perhaps that merits an Auto de Fe?
I’m interested in what prompted all the nothing-talk.
When this subject comes up, it is usually due to the old ‘stupid question/stupid answer’ thing.
I will look for the whole discussion excerpted in the video, though I try to avoid too much exposure to the discourse of pundits and theologians – too tiresome.
I certainly take him seriously as he’s one dangerous man, that and only that . These people seem to get top media coverage year in and year out . How do these so called idiots get on TV write books which millions seem to buy. I once watched him on the miracles of Christ he said that to the people they happened to it was like the Placebo effect as far as modern medicine was concerned. What was dangerous was that so called professional men and women agreed with him this is what gets put out to our kids. That makes him dangerous. How many look and say well Dawkins or his pal Hawkins said it so it must be true.
According to your comments, the secular view of a biologist is dangerous. And from that, he shouldn’t get media coverage. Also, your comments state that idiots are allowed to write books which millions seem to buy. Further, your comments state that so-called professionals agree with him — which is dangerous, as his material (and Hawkins) is put out to our kids.
To remedy the many injustices sighted in your statement, the following would have to happen:
Dawkins as biologist should be labeled as a dangerous man — and should be prevented from publishing books or allowed media coverage. Also, the professional people who support his findings are to be labeled “unprofessional” for agreeing with him or Hawkins.
To do so will silence Dawkins and Hawkins in delivering their dangerous material — preserving the minds of our children. Further, anyone who presents evidence form their scientific field should be censored if it conflicts with the bible.
To all this, a new possible reality reveals itself: Your from North Korea.
The liberals in our society wish to censor out all teaching that the world was created, or even might have been created. That’s “religious fundamentalism” but scientific fundamentalism is OK. You choose to ignore that fact to make out that Dawkins and Hawkins would ever be censored in schools in the UK – no way! The more outlandish the theory, the more likely the kids are to be told it’s a fact but let a teacher mention that there are signs that the world was created, not evolved, and that teacher will be sacked.
“but scientific fundamentalism is OK”
Fundamentalism? The trouble with people labeling things such as science as complicit of fundamentalism, is it’s proportionate to people’s understanding of what science is. Surprisingly, very few in your society are aware of what science is, much less what it represents — irrespective of being untenable to fundamentalism.
We Catholics understand what science is more than you atheists since it is based largely on principles established historically by Catholic thinkers and innovators. The same holds true for health and education, they likewise have their foundation in the Catholic Church. I know that’s an inconvenient truth for atheists, but it is the truth nonetheless.
“We Catholics understand what science is more than you atheists since it is based largely on principles established historically by Catholic thinkers and innovators.”
As a scientist. I accept your challenge, and ask that you scientifically prove your position.
And just to be clear, you asked for this.
As it happens, the North Korean regime does not believe in God either and is probably delighted with Dawkins’ doctrine. He does, after all, share their militant atheistic impulse to eradicate God from the minds and hearts of men by whatever means.
In fact, Dawkins would have been censured by professional secular bodies such as science and the media not so many decades ago. The science community for a start would have taken definite issue with his contradiction of established scientific laws; for if the laws of science are not fixed then nothing that we see and know and believe is any longer trustworthy, everything is in constant flux, the universe and everything in it is just a chaotic mass of accidents that just happen to have worked out wonderfully well thus far.
So with God as Creator out of the window and scientific law called into question, it’s not long before the laws of nature are disputed (as we see today) and human freedom extended to exclude all limits, resulting in licence.
Yes, it’s a fine world the atheists plan to replace God with, a world of Adolf Hitlers, Stalins, Mao Tse Tungs and Kim Jong Un’s, all first and foremost militant atheists and all men who promised great liberation to the masses and delivered only death, destruction and oppression.
No thanks. I’m perfectly content with established Christian truth and order in my life, even if it is sadly scorned today by the multitudes in our “liberated” post-Christian culture. And I have the added advantage that science confirms rather than undermines what the Biblical texts declare about God, Creation, the flood, etc., not that I need confirmation for truths that should be instinctively obvious to all.
You seem to have missed the point altogether — as evident of your epistle.
I find it amazing that with some simple video editing, illiterate people can invent a concept out of nothing.
And one wonders how religion started.
With or without “simple video editing” what Dawkins says stands. He is saying very clearly that something can come from nothing. Not what most people would thinks of as a solid scientific proposition! The “editing” is simply repeating those nonsensical words over and over again. The editor of the video couldn’t do that if he hadn’t said it in the first place!
There’s one thing I cannot understand (and being from North Korea it’s not Kim’s haircut), is why obviously people like yourself with no Religious conviction trawl through sites such as this. For me to let’s say trawl through a Homosexual Deviant site or some such like would be a complete waste of my, as I believe, God given time. Also my belief in God is not based on fairy-tales or such like as you somehow think. Most, if not all, our beliefs on here are based on facts of faith which happened most certainly within my life. If you wish to call me names for believing in spiritual facts which happened within my life that is entirely your decision. What you can’t take from me is my faith and that’s something that really gets to people such as you. Even when the Romans were throwing the Christians to the lions ( like you they did not believe in Christ) they marvelled at how people patiently suffered when all they had to do was deny Christ. I personally do not know your intentions or outlook on life my friend, but to go through life and not once feel the healing saving power of Christ must make you a very poor soul indeed . Kyrie Eleison.
“why obviously people like yourself with no Religious conviction trawl through sites such as this.”
The article was tagged with the ‘atheism’ keyword — like an invitation to the entire secular world — that’s why.
“…our beliefs on here are based on facts of faith”
This is a colossal contradiction of terms.
“If you wish to call me names for believing in spiritual facts which happened within my life that is entirely your decision.”
Odd, I don’t remember calling anyone an idiot.
“What you can’t take from me is my faith and that’s something that really gets to people such as you.”
I care not to convince you to use common sense, do as you please. However, I do take offence to anyone perpetuating a lie to those unable to defend their own position — as children are not of age to make such decisions on their own — but must comply to the teachings of doctrine all the same.
“they marvelled at how people patiently suffered when all they had to do was deny Christ.”
You mean, god didn’t save them? Odd.
“I personally do not know your intentions or outlook on life my friend, but to go through life and not once feel the healing saving power of Christ must make you a very poor soul indeed . Kyrie Eleison.”
Long ago, I used to be religious — but then I grew up.
Interesting that no one questions telling children that the dinosaurs roamed the earth for 179 million years but them a big rock fell from the sky and wiped them all out without any form of solid evidence. All science is conjecture, so presenting this as fact to children could be construed as brainwashing.
At no point has anyone said the dinosaurs [were] wiped out by an asteroid. What has been postulated is that an asteroid [might] have done so — as evident of the many impact sites on earth. There are many comparable theories based on available evidence — none claiming to be the absolute answer — as per how science is conducted.
To take one (of many) theories (based on evidence) and assume the claim was presented as proof — is not an assertion from the scientific community — just your personal conjecture.
Science is based on probabilities, for many reasons. First, nothing is ever absolute, not even the theory of gravity. This allows us to learn more about how we look at things as well as remaining open to correcting any theory. This is how theories are dismissed or reinforced — only those that remain, do so as a result of surviving constant critical assessment. The end result is a scientific theory of higher probability than before, as supported by more evidence.
If one were to take the theory that God created the universe, and subject that theory to the scientific method, it doesn’t survive a single cycle of the scientific method. In fact, it doesn’t make it past the second step. To then claim religion makes sense — causal to the creation of the universe (not inferring high probability, but outright absolution) is to be ignorant of needing basic objective reasoning.
Science has brought mankind much in the past 200 years — most of it in the past 50. This exponential growth of technological development is the result of science working every time. At no point has there ever been a technological discovery or advancement from faith or personal belief. However, the absence in understanding the basics of how science is employed suggests science is but a fiction to those who revere theology as truth — because only faith is required to believe something that cannot make sense, and if faith requires no qualifying reasoning, then distrust in science also requires nothing of reason to dismiss it.
For the same reasons people revere faith as acceptable, is the very same reasons people see science as unacceptable.
There are those of faith who are willing to believe anything told to them without question. Likewise, these are also willing to dismiss anything told to them without question — a self-deprecating state of subjective reasoning to the detriment of the human intellect.
Faith: “I’m able to believe anything without reason, as much as I’m willing to disbelieve anything without reason.”
So you do take as a lie someone not able to defend their position. Why don’t you just come out and shame the devil and tell the Truth. Like Mr P .Harvey you want to close Catholic Schools . Before you go and take that decision Catholic Schools could and should be an awful lot better but year in and year out in Scotland they outperform Public Schools. Maybe there’s a moral lesson to be learned there. Also I suppose there would be no objection from yourself to the terrible sex education that is foisted upon our innocent children from the earliest of primary classes . They are the real ones who cannot protect themselves from Humanist Teachings.
” – but then I grew up”.
Don’t worry. It doesn’t show. 😀
Food for thought on that closed mind of yours . A few years back I can remember having a discussion with an old seaman who had been torpedoed during the war . He was one of the lucky ones ( if you want to call him that ) he told me that’s when he started to believe in God . He then went on to tell me there were actually no Aitheists in his liferaft .
It’s also said that there are no atheists on a death bed. Many doctors and nurses will tell you of patients who have claimed not to believe but who asked to see a clergyman as the end draws near. I have been told that Claire Rayner, who was an atheist and was once President of the British Humanist Society, asked to see a rabbi as she lay dying.
Hmmm! Every culture in recorded history has at least grasped the truth that a greater power than man exists. For most this manifested itself in a more or less crude, oftentimes ridiculous and/or barbaric, form of deity worship. Nevertheless, what the facts demonstrate is that mankind has always understood instinctively that a Creative power far greater than man exists.
It was only by God’s revelation, first to the Jews in the Old Testament then more precisely and directly to Christians in the New, that the truth about God, Creation, the fall and Redemption became known.
So, in fact, it is atheism that is the invented concept, a concept of these proud and rebellious times in which we live. Its origin lies in the French Revolution of 1789, the so-called “Enlightenment” that resulted in man being called a descendant of apes. It doesn’t really get more looney than that!
“Every culture in recorded history has at least grasped the truth that a greater power than man exists.”
These are the same cultures that said the earth was flat, the sun went around the earth, stars were just points of light that could fall from the sky, volcanos erupt because their god was angry, witch-craft was rampant requiring regular burnings of innocent people, and that morality was something you learned by stoning women to death for disobedience.
“For most this manifested itself in a more or less crude, oftentimes ridiculous and/or barbaric, form of deity worship.”
Hey, if religion is subjective, anything goes.
“Nevertheless, what the facts demonstrate is that mankind has always understood instinctively that a Creative power far greater than man exists.”
Seriously? Acts of barbarism = facts?!!! You have an unconscionable sense of morality — simply appalling to read such a thing in this day and age.
“So, in fact, it is atheism that is the invented concept, a concept of these proud and rebellious times in which we live.”
Your sense of reason is indicative of disjointed statements such as this. Given all the religions of the world (current and past) I’m only 0.03% more atheist than everyone else.
Man you still around. You sure don’t half waste some amount of your time on sites where you have no affiliation whatsoever. Still that’s your prerogative at least on here people won’t swear at you,unlike many Aitheist sites .I see you probably haven’t bothered to read some of the facts of our religion. If you go to -www.marypages-there for one if you read the FACTS and they are FACTS about FATIMA itself and say in all honesty ( after reading of course) that there is no God then you my man as it says in proverbs are a fool . Still again that’s your prerogative.
I’m uncertain as to what your attempting to say… as most of what’s written here is a typographic and grammatical train wreck.
Among other things, I’m a qualified teacher of English, so , since this thread is peppered with your mocking responses to bloggers’ typos, allow me to offer some free online tuition.
Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I’ll organise some free lessons for you in English grammar and that way you will soon recognise a typing error such as “Aitheist” which will enable you to realise that the typist means “Atheist” (me, personally, moi? I wouldn’t use a capital letter, but hey, that can be a matter of personal choice, depending on the context.)
Oh and by the way, from your post above: “I’m uncertain as to what your attempting to say” should read “I’m uncertain as to what you’re attempting to say” (i.e. I’m uncertain as to what YOU ARE attempting to say.) Don’t worry about it. You’ll be fine after my intensive CT English Language course, lasting only a couple of years…
Now, stop being rude. If you are going to pick up every slip of the tongue in an oral debate, or slip of the keyboard in blog debate, you’ll never win the argument. What am I saying? This debate is unwinnable for any atheist or pseudo-scientist, which explains your pre-occupation with highlighting typos. But, stick to the arguments. It’s really getting to me having to read unnecessary posts making thin excuses for not dealing with the issues. In a word – behave – my patience is wearing thin!
Extraordinary. It continually surprises me when people go after points not made. When I said “I’m uncertain as to what you’re attempting to say,” I meant it. I’m only interested in what your point was, and if you construe that as principle to a typo — you’d be wrong. If someone says they can’t understand what was written, it’s your opportunity to restate your point with concise meaning. If, by chance, the critical failing of your point was contingent of literary prowess, it’s only a courtesy that I offer a key indicator of where that failing might reside. However, if you’re convinced my statement was a slight against a single typo — as critical in proving some point of reason in my favour, then by all means let’s review your grammatical dexterity of such noble stature.
Editor: what a lot of hot air. The comments containing the offensive (to you) typos/typographical errors, whatever, were very short. If you lack the ability to decipher short sentences, just ignore the comment. Better than insulting your opponents.
“Among other things, I’m a qualified teacher of English, so , since this thread is peppered with your mocking responses to bloggers’ typos, allow me to offer some free online tuition.”
I’ve taught college students for years (all through the 90s), and of this, I’ve repeatedly emphasized the need to “proof your work before you hand it in.” I can excuse the odd slip in a 30 page report, but from a single comment? The lack of sentence structure, clear meaning, and the need for a coherent proposition, was the crux of my objection. I simply could not extract the meaning in your question accurately — burdened with so many issues.
Editor: well, good for you. However, you must make the distinction between students preparing for examinations and busy bloggers trying to keep up with a (ridiculous) discussion in their free time. I have the luxury of being able to edit my comments so I often pick up typing errors pretty quickly but the rest of the bloggers do not have access to that facility. I make a point of never correcting an adult, either in conversation or in blogging (whether here or elsewhere) because it’s downright rude.
“Email me at email@example.com and I’ll organise some free lessons for you in English grammar and that way you will soon recognise a typing error such as “Aitheist” which will enable you to realise that the typist means “Atheist” (me, personally, moi? I wouldn’t use a capital letter, but hey, that can be a matter of personal choice, depending on the context.)
I’d advise that you not claim any credibility in literary proficiency — as claimed in a run-along sentence. You do know what a run-along sentence is, don’t you?
Editor: don’t YOU claim any “credibility in literary proficiency” since, somewhere along the line, your teachers forgot to tell you that, once you ARE proficient in writing, you can break the rules, for effect, to fit with context, whatever.
As for free tuition, this is a non-sequitur if offering “free lessons.” Else, you’d be offering free tuition for paid lessons — verses no tuition for free lessons. BTW, writing “Aitheist” is a typographic error, not a typing error (unless there is something wrong with your keyboard layout, or its function). However, being a qualified teacher, you’d certainly be well aware of this, right?
Editor: allow me to clarify. If you would like some free help – whether with a view to improving your writing or your manners, email me. Glad to help. (or should that read: “I will be glad to help”…
“Oh and by the way, from your post above: “I’m uncertain as to what your attempting to say” should read “I’m uncertain as to what you’re attempting to say”
Yes, auto-correct is troublesome for sure. However, it won’t place a comma after “Oh” — you need to type that yourself.
Editor: I don’t have auto-correction and I chose not to add the comma. Shock horror. Read my earlier correction to your fundamentalist approach to literary skills. Whatever happened to diversity?
“Don’t worry about it. You’ll be fine after my intensive CT English Language course, lasting only a couple of years… Now, stop being rude.”
Improper sentence structure aside, you can’t start a new sentence after an Ellipsis unless there is a period. However, being as you’re the “expert” in grammatical structure, you would know that already.
Editor: Once again, I urge you not to be fundamentalist in your approach to literary skills. Somehow…
Dreary… 😀 Dear Drexus I managed to get my Degrees without your help. But thanks for the thought… oh, and should “Ellipsis” have a capital letter when it’s in the middle of a sentence? I’ve never known that… And I LOVE my ellipsis.
“If you are going to pick up every slip of the tongue in an oral debate, or slip of the keyboard in blog debate, you’ll never win the argument. What am I saying? This debate is unwinnable for any atheist or pseudo-scientist, which explains your pre-occupation with highlighting typos. But, stick to the arguments. It’s really getting to me having to read unnecessary posts making thin excuses for not dealing with the issues. In a word – behave – my patience is wearing thin!”
I care not for a ‘slip of the tongue‘ as you suggest, for this would imply saying something that couldn’t be reviewed first. However, since I’m unconvinced your keyboard is connected to your tongue (as not applicable here), I would still suggest that you review what you write before you post — which is applicable here. This is your preoccupation, not mine.
Editor: you really have too much time on your hands – as the lady said when her husband threw the alarm clock at her…!!??***
Still, I don’t hold it against anyone dropping the occasional typo. If I can understand the point being presented, I’ll respond without mentioning it. I’d rather focus on the meaning of what’s said than dwell on syntax — as contingent to a valid point.
Editor: Of COURSE! One MUST be contingent to a valid point. I completely agree!
If you feel hindered by syntax consuming all your time in maintaining a point, perhaps you should invest some time reviewing your material first before posting — not so much in qualifying your superior literary abilities, but so people can understand at least some portion of what you’re attempting to say.
Editor: shucks, to think people have been reading my comments and articles for years and never a complaint about syntax or contingent points! Such charity!
I care not for “winning” an argument, as evidently you are. I care for what’s true. If your focus is to “win” an argument, your objective then rests with a subjective goal, rather than finding an objective truth. To learn of your intent at this stage exemplifies a dichotomy in dialogue here: those who engage in objective reason through constructive dialog, and those who offer subjective assertions as critical to a debate being “winnable.”
Editor: you’re not going to take my dichotomy in dialogue away from me. It’s mine!
Unfortunately, this means little reason remains for your continued “typing.” I do not trust you care to reveal an objective truth, and thus you offer no point of value in your contributions. You are utterly useless, and a waste of time from any practical perspective. So, by all means, don’t strain your patience any further.
Editor: well, I’ve been called worse. “Useless” is a new one. Could be worse. Couldn’t it? I mean, is there anything worse than being “useless”? There must be. Otherwise, I won’t have any more insults coming my way. I can’t live without my insults. They’re as dear to me as my contingent points. Anyway, don’t let’s fall out. I’m sure we must have something in common… If not ellipsis or contingent points or syntax – what about spelling? Am I OK on spelling? 😀
Reply to Drexus’ post at 11.20 pm – 15/10
I’ve inserted a comment in response to your predictable remark about my own experience of dispassionate “scientists” but have neither the time nor the energy right now to answer the rest – it’s all so pointless. You are just seeking to dismiss everything I’ve said in answer to you, and – thankfully – it doesn’t wash. The bloggers here are highly intelligent and can spot waffle a mile away, so I’ve put in my one clarifying comment for the record, the rest I trust to the good judgment of the bloggers and readers here.
I do trust them – but forgive me if I say “pass” to your exhortation to “trust” scientists. No way. They prove their claims empirically – otherwise it’s not science (as you have said yourself somewhere on this blog…)
Scripture warns us not to put our trust in princes, and, I dare say, had there been scientists around at the time, the writer would have added “or scientists”!
Your feigned outrage at my comments is out of hand. The observation I made about the various cultures was academic, not moral. Still, it was a clever way of avoiding the presented evidence.
Now, I think we both have better things to do than go around in circles with each other. I’m certainly too busy to spend time trying to persuade a person who is not in the slightest objective.
Suffice it to say that objective human reason, even without supernatural faith, must conclude, on the evidence, that the order and beauty of the universe, as well as its fixed laws, cannot be the result of a series of blind and convulsive accidents.
To claim that it is, as in the case of those atheists who push the Big Bang theory, is actually quite insane. When did any big bang ever result in sustained order and beauty? Doesn’t a big bang always bring about chaos and destruction, such as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Besides that, the theory stands in opposition to the laws of thermodynamics, i.e., cold bodies becoming hot bodies all by themselves when we know that it works in quite the opposite direction, i.e., a hot body will always deteriorate to a coldier state.
Then there’s the question of the planets in our solar system. Of the nine (recently reduced by astronomers to 8 plus Pluto), some are rotating in one direction and some in the other. This contradicts the science of Angular Momentum which demonstrates that with any explosition all debris travels in the same direction.
And then there’s the claim that life came from non-life, a crazy idea worthy of Dawkins’ nothing is something idiocy!
So we have the notion presented that a Big Bang occurred in this cold, super-dense state we call space. That’s the first contradiction of science (thermodynamics). And from this it is proposed that the ensuing matter from that explosition formed itself into stars, planets and galaxies, which in due course gave birth to life from non-life. And from that non-life, the so-called “primordial soup”, creatures evolved, first amphibious, then, as they departed the soup, land creatures, from which eventually the ape appears from which man is descended.
This madness contradicts numerous scientific laws. It requires, for example, that evolution proceeds from the less perfect to the more perfect when we know that the opposite is true, everything moves from the more perfect to the less perfect. In other words, everything is in a state of constant deterioration, not the other way around. People age, grow old and die; uranium decays, heat turns to cold, etc.
Then there’s the question of science’s laws concerning the species barrier. Evolution requires a leap from one species to another, i.e., ape to man. Yet we know that a barrier exists that prevents such a leap. Indeed, even where animals of the same species family are inter-bred, such as in the case of the mule, they cannot produce offspring and are doomed by themselves to extinction.
And while on the subject of man descending from the ape, there is not a single intermediate fossil link to prove this, no so-called “missing link”. Odd, that!
What science has discovered in recent years, however, is that Mitochondrial DNA reveals that all human beings have a common female ancestor. If that isn’t supportive of the Biblical truth about Adam and Eve, then I don’t know what is.
Science’s hydroplate theory is also a perfect fit with the Biblical flood, though I won’t go into detail here about cause and effect. You can look that up for yourself.
And as regards the flood, the earth’s sedimentary layers, by which evolutionists claim to date the earth to millions of years, actually have the remains of dinosaur fossils, trees and other objects running straight up and down through them, which is rather indicative of a much more recent formation created by the chaos of a global flood that wiped the dinosaurs out very quickly.
This in turn ties in with the oldest known trees still in existence, dated to around 3000 years, and the oldest coral reefs dated to around 3 – 5000 years, and the oldest written language dated to around 3 – 5000 years.
And the atheists claim that it is Christianity which is hostile to science!!
Do yourself a favour, mull over these facts objectively and ask yourself as a rational human being which of the two propositions fits best with established scientific and historical evidence – Creation or Evolution.
That man and the ape share certain remote similarities does not mean they have a common ancestor, which should be obvious. All it means is that they have a common designer. So let’s not reduce our superior intelligence and gift of reason to the mindset of the knuckle-scraping ape.
I’ll leave it at that.
“Suffice it to say that objective human reason, even without supernatural faith, must conclude, on the evidence, that the order and beauty of the universe, as well as its fixed laws, cannot be the result of a series of blind and convulsive accidents.”
It’s called entropic adaptation, and I don’t subscribe to “must conclude” — as there is no basis for said claim.
“To claim that it is, as in the case of those atheists who push the Big Bang theory, is actually quite insane.”
As already stated, physicists theorize over a possible big-bang — atheists do not. However, rampant ignorance in presenting this to you will go unnoticed, as you will continue to attack a straw man.
“Besides that, the theory stands in opposition to the laws of thermodynamics, i.e., cold bodies becoming hot bodies all by themselves when we know that it works in quite the opposite direction, i.e., a hot body will always deteriorate to a coldier state”
As a scientist, I can assure you: I have no clue what a “coldier state” is. What I can say is you need to read more about the big-bang theory and how it relates to the standard model before making careless claims about the law of conservation of energy (thermodynamics).
“Then there’s the question of the planets in our solar system. Of the nine (recently reduced by astronomers to 8 plus Pluto), some are rotating in one direction and some in the other. This contradicts the science of Angular Momentum which demonstrates that with any explosition all debris travels in the same direction.”
Oh, so you’re an astrophysicist now. I didn’t realize the rotation of planets proves God’s existence — much less contradict angular momentum. I can’t wait for you to reveal this critical data to the scientific community — except where this is completely wrong. Provide your data that points to this violation.
“And then there’s the claim that life came from non-life, a crazy idea worthy of Dawkins’ nothing is something idiocy!”
And then there’s the claim that God made life from non-life, and that God came from nothing — a crazy idea worthy of theists.
“So we have the notion presented that a Big Bang occurred in this cold, super-dense state we call space.”
No. There was no space at the beginning — as per the theory. Please read up on it if you want to talk about it.
“…which in due course gave birth to life from non-life.”
Sure, if you skip about 1000 steps.
“And from that non-life, the so-called “primordial soup”, creatures evolved, first amphibious, then, as they departed the soup, land creatures, from which eventually the ape appears from which man is descended.”
Umm… no. Really, you need to read this stuff if you want to criticize it. You’re presenting an argument based on reading the back of a book, rather than reading the actual material.
“…that evolution proceeds from the less perfect to the more perfect when we know that the opposite is true, everything moves from the more perfect to the less perfect.”
Honestly, that’s the first time I’ve heard such a claim — fantastic is the reality you must live in. I would recommend you read a little about how entropy works before offering such claims.
“…everything is in a state of constant deterioration, not the other way around. People age, grow old and die; uranium decays, heat turns to cold, etc.”
Ok, first, these are two separate things. People aging has nothing to do with how the universe works — simply untenable.
“Then there’s the question of science’s laws concerning the species barrier. Evolution requires a leap from one species to another, i.e., ape to man.”
There is so much wrong with this one statement, it’s difficult to know where to start. Are you simply making this all up? If you did a lick of reading on the species barrier, you will find — surprise! — it supports evolution on all fronts. Second, no claim was ever made that man evolved from apes. This ignorant connection is so tired, it’s the standard joke against theists… as a measure of how they attempt to attack science. We all laugh because it’s so predictable for theists to skip any material on how this process actually worked.
“And while on the subject of man descending from the ape, there is not a single intermediate fossil link to prove this, no so-called “missing link”. Odd, that!”
Again, do some reading.
“What science has discovered in recent years, however, is that Mitochondrial DNA reveals that all human beings have a common female ancestor.”
Given your track record thus far, please provide the scientific material that supports this (and I don’t mean “joe’s blog”).
“Science’s hydroplate theory is also a perfect fit with the Biblical flood, though I won’t go into detail here about cause and effect. You can look that up for yourself.”
No. This isn’t a theory from science. It’s a “theory” from creationist Walt Brown — army officer, not scientist.
“And as regards the flood, the earth’s sedimentary layers, by which evolutionists claim to date the earth to millions of years, actually have the remains of dinosaur fossils, trees and other objects running straight up and down through them, which is rather indicative of a much more recent formation created by the chaos of a global flood that wiped the dinosaurs out very quickly.”
So you’re a creationist now… Oh boy. So, if the all the water that fell — covering the highest mountains — where did it all go? And if the earth was created by God, what made the gigantic impact craters on earth? Oh, and did God create the Pando colony of trees (quaking aspen) 76,000 years before the earth and sun? How would they have survived if the global flood happened in 2304 BC (4320 years from today), given the oldest trees on earth are over 5000 years old? Also, if god created the universe after the earth, how is it the universe is 13.8 billion years old — as evident to discovering galaxies that far away — much less seeing galaxies (M31) being millions of light-years wide? Where is your science for that?
“And the atheists claim that it is Christianity which is hostile to science!!”
No, just ignorant.
I had hoped for something a little more substantial in your comments. Your response was that of a foot-stamping infant. But then, I suppose anyone who comes on here to defend the infamous Dawkins must already be intellectually challenged.
As evident to the whit of your concise and meaningful response — as said from an unparalleled science illiterate.
There’s no greater “science illiterate” than the man who thinks that something can come from nothing (and that, of course, let us never forget, is the ridiculous basis of the theory held dear by all evolutionary believers, not just Dear Old Dawkins).
There’s no greater “science illiterate” than a person who thinks that a theory of something coming from nothing equals an outright claim.
But please, knock this straw man over and over and over again — all the while remaining ignorant of how the scientific process works. I don’t mind, keep building your straw-man arguments and I’ll call you on it every time.
There’s no “straw man” – you can’t surely listen to those statements from Dawkins about “something coming from nothing” and actually think that he means something else. What the heck is he saying? None of you “science” people have come up with an alternative meaning.
It’s a mistake to put these scientists on a pedestal. Only yesterday, coincidentally, a thirteen year old nephew of mine was showing me his terrific science book, and on flicking through it, I was reminded of the fact that Charles Darwin had admitted that it was just impossible for the human eye to “evolve” – it threw his theory up in the air – but, while explaining in great detail that the eye was just too technical to have evolved, he decided to say it did anyway! Some scientist, eh?
I repeat, no straw man. If we have misunderstood Dawkins’ plain words, then explain to us what he meant. Don’t blame God. He made Dawkins’ soul in His own image and likeness – Dawkins’ himself decided what to make of his brain 😉
“There’s no “straw man” – you can’t surely listen to those statements from Dawkins about “something coming from nothing” and actually think that he means something else. What the heck is he saying? None of you “science” people have come up with an alternative meaning.”
This is the very thing people here seem to miss consistently. I will attempt to dumb this down as far as possible in the hopes you might grasp this basic concept.
The Big-Bang is a scientific theory — a model of what might have happened, based on the available evidence. A theory. No truth is ever claimed in science — not even for gravitational theory. Do you understand? It’s a theory, an estimation of probability based on supporting evidence. No claims for this being 100% true — because nothing, and I mean nothing, is ever 100% absolute in science. Get it? Have you got it? Do you understand? Please let it sink in for a second or two.
The fundamental structure of how science is pursued involves this primary reasoning. Get it? We never claim anything as absolute. Understand? We do this so we are always open to more accurate information — understand? Do you even understand these words? Read them slowly.
Given that science is all about furthering knowledge through critical qualification — as always open to being corrected by new evidence, the Big-Bang THEORY (like other theories) fits the data collected thus far. Understand?
As for evolution, there is a mountain of evidence that explicitly describe the evolution process as responsible for the development of all species on earth. Better than that, evolution is testable and the results are repeatable. Why? because evolution is never ending. It’s still in action — get it? Do you understand? Still happening now — that’s why it’s real — get it?
Scientific theories = evidence, prerequisite to any idea becoming a theory at all. Understand? Do you get it? For a theory to exist, it must first have supporting evidence, get it? Nothing is ever ‘made up’ and presented as the truth — much less a theory. Understand? Read this again if you don’t.
Faith = the absence of any evidence maintaining a belief. Get it? No evidence, none, zero, understand? You may have ideas, you might even have data of a particular kind, but you have nothing as evidence. Zero. Understand? When you have faith, it’s the very same thing as hope. It’s also the same thing as pretending is true. Simply pretending is not cause for credibility.
For creationist and theists, they have no choice but to base their beliefs on faith — because there is no verifiable, repeatable or qualifiable data that can be categorized as evidence, much less proof, to the existence of God. Understand? The claims made are without any supporting evidence. Thus, you need to use FAITH (you have to start pretending) if you want to continue believing in it.
Your Straw-man argument that Dawkins claimed the big-bang theory has be recognized as true — is untenable to any such claim from a scientist. Simply referring to a theory being magnitudes more likely than those by creationist is comparable to those who still think the earth is flat. From the perspective of science, the likelihood earth being flat is inconceivably small. As a result, one would have to present extraordinary evidence to maintain any claim the earth is flat, while the round-earth theory being unlikely is inconceivably small.
Your straw-man argument rests solely on your idea that the big-bang theory was ever presented as fact — which no claim was ever made. You ASSUMED this scientific theory has somehow been proven as fact — even though no one in the scientific community said so, implied, or suggested this — ignorant of how scientific theories are analyzed.
If you care to know a little bit about what Professor Krauss and others say about “something from nothing, ” You will have to do some reading — scary as that sounds.
If you were to do a little bit of reading on the topic of the multiverse, you might learn that our reality is likely the result of parallel universes, intersecting to create this one. That’s how you get something in this reality from the intersection of other realities. How does this idea become a theory? We perform quantum entanglement experiments, and the data is consistently repeatable. Is this theory considered to be the true theory? No, no claim for this theory being correct over all other theories was ever made, for this theory is one of many theories matching the data we have. In time, more data may eliminate some theories and possibly supporting other theories.
Either way, all the current theories have supporting evidence — magnitudes more than anything that could be considered as evidence for creationism.
The ignorance of the presented video underlines the narrow scope of those who cannot wrap their heads around anything other than scripture — as though celebrating their ignorance was a symbol of pride.
Just because you failed to read up on what was being discussed, taking Dawkins’ comments out of context, you’ve advanced nothing in countering the presented theory. However, it’s evident you would rather pursue your assessment from incomplete information (ignorance) — resulting in your attacks being nothing more than straw-man arguments. Your claims come from a lack of reading, and a lack of objective reasoning.
There is hope for humanity yet. As the current data supports, theists will continue to shrink with each passing generation. Theists are an endangered species — rapidly descending towards their inevitable extinction. From my perspective, this cannot happen fast enough.
Your debating skills are something to behold. Wow! What a response (not)!
I know full well how the “scientific process” works today. It works by proposing the ludicrous and suppressing the obvious. It wasn’t always like that, but such are the proud and rebellious times in which we live.
What was once a system grounded in fixed laws has become a vehicle against reason and nature. The loonies truly have taken over the assylum, as Dawkins amply demonstrates.
“It works by proposing the ludicrous and suppressing the obvious.”
You see, you can’t even maintain an objective point without talking trash. You’re a complete write-off intellectually — incapable of reasoned discourse.
This is a reply to Drexus’ comment 8.14 pm
I’ve not mentioned the daft Big Bang THEORY once, let alone in my most recent reply to you. So, your remark: “Your Straw-man argument that Dawkins claimed the big-bang theory has be recognized as true … is a nonsense. I said no such thing. The rest of your post is just silly. And when I say “silly”, I really mean “crackers”. (Note: “Straw-man” really doesn’t require a capital “S” – unless, of course, you’ve gone and had him baptised.)
You don’t need to convince me that evolution is nothing more than a theory – but, hey, it’s good to hear that from a self-professed scientist because saying the same thing when I was Head of RE in an educational establishment in England, almost got me sacked – and saying so HAS got at least one science teacher (Head of Department) known to me, demoted. So thank you for confirming the obvious fact that anyone who spouts belief in evolution is doing just that – exercising FAITH in an increasingly discredited scientific THEORY.
Now, I have done a bit of reading around Krauss, who said: “Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” ― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing.
Yes, reading Krauss is quite an experience. Tell him to stick to expounding his pseudo-science – theology really isn’t his “thing”.-
“I’ve not mentioned the daft Big Bang THEORY once…”
A testament to your understand of the conversation in question — “something from nothing”. If you didn’t know what the conversation was based on, don’t attempt to argue the points.
“ The rest of your post is just silly”
Oh, well, there you have it. Science is silly, but Noah’s ark isn’t.
“ saying the same thing when I was Head of RE in an educational establishment in England, almost got me sacked”
Evidently, I doubt that’s all there was on the table.
Editor: wouldn’t you like to know! Suffice to say that the so called “scientists” on the staff didn’t like MY staff using a video presentation of a string of scientists who challenge evolutionary THEORY: despite the fact that not one of them mentioned God, this was considered unacceptable. Evolution – they insisted – is a FACT (and the RE Department video was entitled Evolution, Fact or Belief;contrary to what you say about belief being for church/Sunday, those eminent scientists argued that, to hold evolutionary theory as true/factual, as the majority do these days, one had to exercise faith, belief…
“belief in evolution is doing just that – exercising FAITH in an increasingly discredited scientific THEORY”
No belief is needed in science. Trust, perhaps. Belief — that’s something some people do on Sunday.
“Yes, reading Krauss is quite an experience. Tell him to stick to expounding his pseudo-science – theology really isn’t his “thing”.
I’ll tell him on you’re behalf. I’m sure he’d be amused.
“The Big-Bang is a scientific theory — a model of what might have happened, based on the available evidence. A theory. No truth is ever claimed in science — not even for gravitational theory. Do you understand? It’s a theory, an estimation of probability based on supporting evidence. No claims for this being 100% true — because nothing, and I mean nothing, is ever 100% absolute in science. Get it? Have you got it? Do you understand? Please let it sink in for a second or two.”
False! The Big-Bang is a scientific hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is something that can be tested using scientific method. The Big-Bang cannot be tested in science and is therefore mere speculation which is not only not supported by scientific evidence, but is actually disproved by it. And yet it is today embraced as fact to the exclusion of the more convincing natural and supernatural evidence of Creation.
To borrow the words of C S Lewis in this regard: “Men became scientific because they expected law (order) in Nature, and they expected law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their belief in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared – the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”
It seems, Drexus, that you are one of those who reject science in favour of ‘scientism’, the latter being a dogmatic atheistic usurpation of true science.
“Given that science is all about furthering knowledge through critical qualification — as always open to being corrected by new evidence, the Big-Bang THEORY (like other theories) fits the data collected thus far. Understand?”
False! Devotees of the new scientism have suppressed all Biblical and natural evidence supportive of Creationism. They even suppress all negative scientific data that shows their Big-Bang hypothesis to be highly unlikely at best. As I said before, there is no data to support the Big-Bang because the Big-Bang cannot be tested using scientific method. It’s a mere hypothesis, and not a very convincing one.
“As for evolution, there is a mountain of evidence that explicitly describe the evolution process as responsible for the development of all species on earth. Better than that, evolution is testable and the results are repeatable. Why? because evolution is never ending. It’s still in action — get it? Do you understand? Still happening now — that’s why it’s real — get it?”
False! Here’s the response of Dr. Vernon R Cupps, Ph.D:
“Another example of misapplication is supplied by the well-known Darwinian theory of evolution—which is more properly categorized as a hypothesis. This hypothesis is closely tied to the idea of spontaneous generation, which Louis Pasteur disproved. Evolution hypothesizes that life on Earth sprang from inanimate matter some 3.5 billion years ago and has subsequently evolved through a series of genetic mutations and natural selection into the diversity we currently observe. The evidence cited to support this hypothesis is that the fossil record found in the geological column (rock strata) seems to move from less-complex to more-complex organisms.
However, no transitional forms (organisms that combine features of two distinct species) have ever been definitely observed in the present or in the fossil record. No experiment to date has been able to produce a living organism from inanimate matter in spite of valiant attempts by researchers such as Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago. With no observational or experimental data to back it up, evolution somehow progressed from a suspect hypothesis to scientific fact in less than 50 years. Observation and reproducible experimentation are the foundations of science and as such are the established facts upon which the various hypotheses, theories, and natural laws rest.
To portray any hypothesis or theory as fact is a clear misapplication of the scientific method. Hypotheses must be verifiable or falsifiable through observation and reproducible experimentation to be considered a legitimate participant in the scientific method. Various hypotheses concerning the age and formation of our universe (the Big Bang and multiverse hypotheses) and the development of living systems (the Darwinian evolution hypothesis) are routinely taught in Western school systems as scientific fact, but none of these hypotheses have been confirmed through observation or experimentation. Alternate hypotheses are often not allowed to be even whispered. Have we now come full circle back to Thales’ stubborn dependence on naturalism alone? Is this science? Or is it the type of dogma that has characterized erroneous philosophies throughout the ages and led to incalculable human misery and a distorted understanding of reality itself? We need to reclaim the scientific method and teach it correctly.”
” Scientific theories = evidence, prerequisite to any idea becoming a theory at all. Understand? Do you get it? For a theory to exist, it must first have supporting evidence, get it? Nothing is ever ‘made up’ and presented as the truth — much less a theory. Understand? Read this again if you don’t.”
It is quite clear from the aforesaid that you don’t get it! You have just confirmed everything I have written.
“Faith = the absence of any evidence maintaining a belief. Get it? No evidence, none, zero, understand? You may have ideas, you might even have data of a particular kind, but you have nothing as evidence. Zero. Understand?”
On the contrary, the Creation religion, not the scientism religion, is the real scientific one. Its predictions concerning scientific laws and processes of the present and the fossil record of the past are precisely confirmed in the real world. Indeed, Catholic scientists throughout the centuries, including many clerics, have made all the major discoveries from the Creationist scientific worldview.
That Scientism is the religion of dogmatic atheists is demonstrated by these words of one of its leading disciples, Michael Shermer, who said:
“Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an age of Science. . . . cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. We follow the dictates of our shamans; it is scientism’s shamans who command our veneration. . . . with scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time.” (Michael Shermer, “The Shamans of Scientism” Scientific American (June 2002) p. 35.).
” When you have faith, it’s the very same thing as hope. It’s also the same thing as pretending is true. Simply pretending is not cause for credibility.”
Then why do you atheists pretend that the twin hypothesis of the Big-Bang and Evolutionism are true and worthy of credibility when they are at best suspect speculations that can never be tested and proved (or disproved) in accordance with proper scientific method?
“For creationist and theists, they have no choice but to base their beliefs on faith — because there is no verifiable, repeatable or qualifiable data that can be categorized as evidence, much less proof, to the existence of God. Understand? The claims made are without any supporting evidence.”
False! As I have demonstrated already, all the scientific evidence upholds Creationism and disproves the purely speculative and untested hypothesis you push. The history of Science, before it was hijacked by atheistic naturalists, is rich in evidence supportive of Creationist science. You just don’t want to admit it because it opposes and deposes your atheistic religion.
“Your straw-man argument rests solely on your idea that the big-bang theory was ever presented as fact — which no claim was ever made. You ASSUMED this scientific theory has somehow been proven as fact — even though no one in the scientific community said so, implied, or suggested this — ignorant of how scientific theories are analyzed.”
And yet, the Big-Bang hypothesis is taught exclusively in every school in Western society and expressed every day by leading figures in the country as though it were infallibly true. So much so, in fact, that they will no longer admit true science, the science of Creationism, into the schools or intellectual establishments. Who are you trying to fool, Drexus?
“…all the current theories have supporting evidence — magnitudes more than anything that could be considered as evidence for creationism.”
What you have actually done here is invert the reality of what is scientifically true and proven.
“The ignorance of the presented video underlines the narrow scope of those who cannot wrap their heads around anything other than scripture — as though celebrating their ignorance was a symbol of pride.”
Yet another inversion of reality. It is certainly not we Catholics and Creationists who demonstrate scientific ignorance. Listen to the mad Dawkins again and watch even the young audience laugh at him.
“Just because you failed to read up on what was being discussed, taking Dawkins’ comments out of context, you’ve advanced nothing in countering the presented theory.”
Oh, is that what we did, took the old Looney’s comments out of context? He didn’t seem to be able to explain them himself when put to the question and that’s why people laughed at him, and rightly so.
“…Your claims come from a lack of reading, and a lack of objective reasoning.”
Yet another inversion of the truth. It is not we on this blog who are ignorant and lacking in objectivity, my friend, as this truly bigoted conclusion to your comments amply demonstrates:
“There is hope for humanity yet. As the current data supports, theists will continue to shrink with each passing generation. Theists are an endangered species — rapidly descending towards their inevitable extinction. From my perspective, this cannot happen fast enough.”
Spoken like a true atheist, hateful in the extreme. Thank you for clarifying that you do not represent true science at all but rather Scientism, an atheistic, dogmatic religion whose disciples and devotees have a common goal, i.e., to eradicate the true God and all that proves His existence from the face of the earth. Now we know the real motive, which until this point we could only suspect.
“False! The Big-Bang is a scientific hypothesis, not a theory.”
Clearly, you’re flat out wrong — again. At least look something up before you offer such claims. Is it really that hard to check? Given this day and age with easy access to so much information, what could possibly be your excuse?
As for C S Lewis, why not pick Dr. Seuss? Your reference would be equally relevant. Now, if you wanted to quote Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, or Max Planck… heck anyone from the 1927 Solvay Conference, that would make more sense.
“It seems, Drexus, that you are one of those who reject science in favour of ‘scientism’, the latter being a dogmatic atheistic usurpation of true science.”
That would be your subjective opinion. Given your apt intimacy with science, I need not expect any response to the contrary. Fitting.
“False! Devotees of the new scientism have suppressed all Biblical and natural evidence supportive of Creationism.”
First, I don’t agree with Scientism. Science has its place in resolving those things needing exact truth. However, art, social expression, philosophy and all that is abstract in meaning does not require the scientific method.
Second, if someone has suppressed certain data that might bring a greater understanding to the idea of creationism, then I’m willing to read it. Please present this data.
As for Dr. Cupps… don’t get me started on that guy. Many are surprised he’d employed.
“the Creation religion, not the scientism religion, is the real scientific one.”
Really? A social construct qualifies as scientific?
Because scientists use science to solve many of today’s technological challenges, does not mean we’re part of a religion. Community yes, religion? No. There is no superhuman leader in our space demanding worship.
“Then why do you atheists pretend that the twin hypothesis of the Big-Bang and Evolutionism are true…”
As mentioned already, we don’t. We weigh each scientific theory as more evidence is collected.
“…suspect speculations that can never be tested and proved…”
Refer to my previous comment in qualifying a scientific theory.
“False! As I have demonstrated already, all the scientific evidence upholds Creationism and disproves the purely speculative and untested hypothesis you push.”
Simply saying this — does not qualify as a valid response. You have to say I’m wrong because (insert evidence) etc. Else, you might as well say God created the universe, and the sky being blue is proof of this.
“The history of Science, before it was hijacked by atheistic naturalists, is rich in evidence supportive of Creationist science.”
Creationist science? You mean this stuff?:
“So much so, in fact, that they will no longer admit true science…”
According to you, Creationist science is valid, and regular science isn’t? O-K then.
“What you have actually done here is invert the reality of what is scientifically true and proven.”
Please, prove me wrong.
“Oh, is that what we did, took the old Looney’s comments out of context?”
So, there must be some validity in what Dawkins offers, why else would you revert to name calling? Clearly he’s struck a chord.
“Spoken like a true atheist, hateful in the extreme.”
Were I agnostic, I wouldn’t care for the suffering and atrocities practiced in the name of religion. No, I have a decent amount of sociality to call a fallacy for what it is. The suffering of humanity under the hand of religion — Catholicism chief of these, calls upon the built-in morality of all people to denounce its actions.
Yes, my true motive: I care for my fellow man — so much, that exposing religion for what it is — is a noble survival trait of the human species.
Given you have defined yourself as a catholic, I can tell you this: Of all the religions of the world, both past and present, I’m only 0.03% more atheist than you.
Scientific theory is something that can be, and must be, tested by the scientific model to prove the truth or falsehood of the theory. If it cannot be tested, such as in the case of the Big-Bang and Evolutionism then it is NOT THEORY, it is conjecture or “hypothesis”, nothing more. Hypothesis cannot even be considered as seriously scientific, much less endorsed by the world as though true, when it can’t be tested. That’s not science, it’s atheistic dogmatic scientism and it is promoted solely on bias against Christianity.
No amount of webpage reading, especially Wikipedia, can change that fact. Hypothesis is what the Big-Bang and Evolution propositions are, and it is what they must remain as long as they cannot be tested.
There is the Creationist approach to the origin of all things, however, and this can be tested and proven as most likely by means of the scientific method.
There is the fact that life cannot come from non-life, thus far the only credible proposition supported by data that science must endorse if it is to remain neutral.
We have seen how all experiments to prove spontaneous generation (evolution) have failed. Hardly surprising given that the notion mocks what geneticists have already long established in regard to the species barrier.
As for Creation itself, there is far more credibility in the proposition that a beautiful and perfectly ordered universe, with delicately constructed and balanced earth, is the work of an intelligent being rather than the result of chaotic events whose instigation cannot itself be reconcilied with scientificly established observations.
Truth is, Drexus, you’re not a man of science at all, you’re a man of scientism, which explains your hate-filled comment against theists at the conclusion of your previous post. No true scientist could harbour such bigotry when it is clear that Creationism has much to offer scientific investigation, including the important moral and social aspects of human beings.
I’ll leave it to St. Paul to best describe your situation, advising that you really should take those bigoted blinkers off if you wish to be taken seriously.
“For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:20-25).
That’s what scientism does, it supplants the supernatural with the purely natural by suppression of truth and promotion of error.
You can write on here as much as you like pretending enlightenment, but the fact reamins that you are lost to true wisdom as well as true science.
“Scientific theory is something that can be, and must be, tested by the scientific model to prove the truth or falsehood of the theory.”
Yes. However, using the scientific method is how you get there. How does creationism perform when put through the scientific method?
“If it cannot be tested, such as in the case of the Big-Bang and Evolutionism then it is NOT THEORY, it is conjecture or “hypothesis”, nothing more.”
Completely false. Please read any official reference you choose, such as:
“A theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density.”
“Big-bang model, widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the universe from a state of extremely high temperature and density—the so-called big bang that occurred 13.8 billion years ago.”
“Hypothesis cannot even be considered as seriously scientific, much less endorsed by the world as though true, when it can’t be tested.”
Straw-man argument. Not hypothesis was ever referenced — you’re the only one claiming this, not me.
“There is the Creationist approach to the origin of all things, however, and this can be tested and proven as most likely by means of the scientific method.”
I’ve asked for this data, and you’ve provided nothing. Simply to claim something while refusing to back it up is a baseless claim. Were you to provide evidence to your claims, the entire scientific community would listen. However, such isn’t the case for you. From what I’ve seen here, if something does not agree with YOU, your next move is to change the rules by claiming a scientific theory is something other than what’s understood internationally. Yes, the whole world is wrong, but you have it right.
I’ve provided credible references anyone could easily access — outside of Wikipedia (just to humour you), yet this isn’t to your satisfaction. You claim to know what science is, but can’t reconcile what a scientific theory is — even with rock solid references.
I’ve asked for you to prove the position of superiority in science as “established historically by Catholic thinkers and innovators” — but you failed to answer at all.
I’ve asked you to prove “what the facts demonstrate is that mankind has always understood instinctively that a Creative power far greater than man exists.” — but you failed to answer at all.
You haven’t explained what a “coldier state” is — failing to answer at all.
You haven’t explained the relevance of planets turning one way or the other — as evidence to your claims — failing to answer at all.
You’ve also failed to answer any of the key questions I’ve asked with respect to creationism. You’ve failed to address all the point counter to your claims — as though moving on to something else invalidates the previous challenge.
Every response I present to your claims is met with silence or ignorance. It’s clear you care not for anything of reason — it’s no wonder Dawkins dismisses any conversation with a creationist as pointless. You can’t even agree that the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory — qualifying your point with nothing. You represent a pointless exercise, a child who’s wrong at every turn — presenting only another unfounded claim when the pervious was proven wrong. You don’t learn because you care not to learn. Were I to say 4+4=8, you would be convinced it was 10, likely claiming my calculator is wrong or biased. You’re unmovable, unwilling to learn, rigid and stiff-necked — utterly useless to any discourse or reason.
I forgot to mention that if you think religion has a bad past in respect to violence, you really need to check out Hitler and Stalin as just two atheistic despots whose crimes against humanity were unprecedented. Both were convinced evolutionists,like you, and both hated religion, like you.
That’s what the world can look forward to in the future with atheistic scientism. I’m afraid as role models go, Hitler and Stalin do not support your claim to caring for humanity. And let’s not forget about all those pre-Christian pagan empires. Brutality was their daily nourishment. But to be in the same scientism camp as Hitler and Stalin, Drexus! Come on, get a grip.
“I forgot to mention that if you think religion has a bad past in respect to violence, you really need to check out Hitler and Stalin as just two atheistic despots whose crimes against humanity were unprecedented.”
Wow. This never fails… I could have predicted this move a mile away. This has been proven false so many times, it’s become a laughable exercise known to all.
Again, even though Dawkins (among many others) has proven this false time and time again. People still attempt this argument one more time, as though presenting it just one more time might remain unchallenged for more than a minute. Dawkins realized people really don’t care to read the evidence. So he moved it several times in various books. In one of his latest books, he had to put it on the back cover — all by itself — in case they manage to miss it again.
No, you’re likely to still think the earth is flat, and that Stalin and Hitler were atheists — despite all the religious documentation known to all.
Congratulations, you’ve run the gamut, covered all the bases, proven unequivocally your profound and innate sense of ignorance. You should be given a medal for the most consistent display of ignorance.
It’s taken me ages to read all your comments and the one that amazes me the most is where you claim that evolution is not treated as a fact but as a theory; secondly your comment about nobody ever claiming that we evolved from apes.
I don’t know where you live but here in the UK it is taken for granted in the media and in schools, that evolution is a fact and that we evolved from apes at various stages. We are now told that we descended from a common primates, e.g. the African ape.
When the subject is being reported, the news presenter has this picture on the screen behind them (I hope it appears, I have tried to follow the instructions to copy a picture straight onto the blog.)
So, I have to say your comments are very surprising. I know when I speak to kids and ask them about this, they always say they were told in school that we all evolved from apes and evolution happened, it’s not just a theory.
I wonder why there is so much confusion about this, if scientists only accept what they can see and observe?
“It’s taken me ages to read all your comments and the one that amazes me the most is where you claim that evolution is not treated as a fact but as a theory”
“In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection…”
It should be noted that scientific theory is not the same as an objective theory. You can say “I’ve a theory it will be cold this weekend.” This is a perspective of one’s reasoning, informal vernacular if you like. Scientific Theory however, this is something all together different. It implies nothing subjective or whimsical, but calculated and formal.
“I don’t know where you live but here in the UK it is taken for granted in the media and in schools, that evolution is a fact and that we evolved from apes at various stages.”
Gravity is a scientific theory (gravitational theory). However, it doesn’t make it any less real.
As for apes, there is plenty of confusion in this area when visual references show a picture of a modern ape — since you can’t take a photo of an extinct species of ape, most often a chimp, gorilla or similar is used as the image.
Hominoidea, the superfamily of primates encompasses all ape descendants known today. The problem comes from descriptions similar to what’s found here:
Here, you don’t see the tree. The description show apes as being “gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans.” And that’s fine. However, these are species as they are today, not millions of years ago. So when you say “ape” you immediately think of — gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees (and on rare occasions, some people will think of humans as apes).
We’re not from “apes” as many understand it because we are still a type of ape today. We are descendants of Hominoidea — an early type of ape in the tree that looks nothing like what’s seen today:
If I’ve referred to humans as not being from apes (an actual species), I mean were not descendants of gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees — because people immediately think of these when you say the word ape. But to be crystal clear, “apes” are not a species, apes are an entire branch of primates known as Hominoidea.
We did not come from monkeys or gorillas, and we did not come [from] apes. We [are] still a specific genus in the ape branch — we didn’t leave it.
It would be better to describe humans as: decadents from earlier primates in the ape branch.
Are we descendants from apes? No — because we’re still apes, and an ape isn’t a specific species of primate to be a descendant of. So many people point to a gorilla and scoff at the claim we descended from it. We didn’t, a gorilla evolved separately on its own into what you see today.
“(I hope it appears, I have tried to follow the instructions to copy a picture straight onto the blog.)”
I’ve tried. I can’t seem to get it to work either. To that, I’d like to make things italic or bold… but haven’t looked into it.
“I wonder why there is so much confusion about this, if scientists only accept what they can see and observe?”
I can only speculate on why this happens. It might be that saying “ape” is easier than explaining how we descended from a common ancestor of apes. Else, it would imply apes remained unchanged, and only we evolved… which wouldn’t make sense.
Hitler and Stalin were certainly not practising Christians, LOL!
Well, certainly not like today. But much of what they did do was in that guise.
Editor: there are too many replies against the same reply button, and it takes forever to find the last “reply” button now; I will, therefore, inject my reply to your claim that “much of what [Hitler and Stalin] did was “in that guise”, meaning “Christian”. Patent nonsense.
It’s more than likely that the majority of self-proclaimed atheists were, in fact, baptised into the Christian religion as babies. Technically, then, it could be argued that they were/are “Christians”. So… ARE they? Could “much of what they do” be attributed to their “Christianity” even though they’ve abandoned any pretence of Christian belief and practise? Ditto Hitler and Stalin. They were about as “Christian” as any contemporary atheist. They were butchering people who would not conform to their idea of the State. And it was NOT a State based on Christian belief, principles and practise. Trust me on that one!
Here’s a well documented article on the topic of atheistic dictators and the claim that any were Christians. As the author says, anyone who says that today, with all the available evidence, is on the same level as holocaust deniers.
Atheist Governments of the 20th Century: The Death Toll of Godless Goodness
March 9, 2013 by Rebecca Hamilton 86 Comments
After 17 years in political office, I am familiar with many of the tactics political bullies employ.
One of the most commonplace — and effective — is disruption. I’m not sure when this began, but I do know that both the Communists and the Nazis used it to good advantage, and that it then moved onto the scene here in America in the last half of the 20th century.
The methodology is quite simple. Simply go into a meeting, an on-line discussion, a classroom or whatnot and make yelling speeches out of turn, ask strident and abusive questions, call people names and take over the place. Stop other people from talking by shouting them down.
The so-called “new atheists” employ this tactic constantly in on-line spaces where Christians gather. They often swarm on Public Catholic like a bunch of angry wasps. One of the tactics they employ (along with sending me a barrage of name-calling, abusive messages when I won’t allow them to post their name-calling, abusive comments on this blog) is to demand ridiculous levels of “proof” of any statement that anyone makes in favor of Christianity.
If you say that water is wet, they want a cite.
This is both tiresome and diversionary. It pulls the discussion away from the main points of the post in question, and refocuses it on the yelling blather of the disrupter. This is an especially good tactic to employ when you don’t have any valid points to make, as in, say, trying to argue against the simple fact that 20th Century atheist governments murdered many millions of their own citizens.
Just for the fun of it, I tried googling to find a source which gave totals of the people atheist regimes slaughtered in the past century. I found a lot of sites. Interestingly, the totals were pretty much the same, wherever I looked. So, instead of giving you a clickable site for what is common knowledge, I’m going to suggest a book. If you want to learn about deaths under the atheist regimes of communism, go to amazon.com
If you want to learn about the tactics you’ve seen employed on this and other Christian on-line sites, go to amazon.com
In the meantime, here are the generally-accepted death counts from atheist regimes of the 20th Century. I think it’s important to note that these figures are the most conservative I could find. For instance, Stalin’s death toll is only for the 1930s.
Hitler is a special case in that he is a right wing rather than a left wing killer. What this means in practice is that Hitler pandered to Christianity in his early rise to power, then took over the churches once he got in power. He enforced this by imprisoning and killing large numbers of bishops and Catholic priests as well as protestants. Anyone who tried to stand for the Gospels in his regime was signing their own death certificate. According to documentaries I’ve seen on the History Channel, Hitler made fun of faith and religious people in private.
In my opinion, claims that Hitler was a Christian at the time he committed these crimes (he may have been as a child, I don’t know) or that Stalin was a Christian, which I’ve also heard, put the claimants in the same intellectual space as holocaust deniers.
Another important point is that most of these deaths were the result of government leaders, killing their own citizens. Again, Hitler is a special case in that he also killed civilians in conquered territories of the Reich. Whether or not this made them citizens is a point of law. I think it does, since he was responsible for their governance.
There are a plethora of places where you can verify these numbers, if you are so-minded.
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered
Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered
Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered
Creationism is not a theory, it is a fact, The laws of science are founded upon what was revealed in the Biblical texts in relation to the nature of things. They correspond one with the other, or at least did until that avenue of research was closed down by bigoted scientism. As I said earlier, most if not all of the scientists up to recent times were Christian, mostly Catholic. These made the major scientific breakthroughs that we call the laws of science, and they made them proceeding from the basis of Scriptural revelation and record.
Evolutionism has been utterly disproved by this method of true science, in that genetics has demonstrated that the species barrier cannot be breached, much less with the positive and lasting results that evolutionists dream of. Palaeontology has likewise dismissed the hypothesis and all attempts at spontaneous generation have failed.
What is left, and fits perfectly with all related branches of science, is that the life and variety of all things on earth comes from God the life-giver. He is the Creator and science proves it. Evolutionism is a myth for quacks and the brainless masses who want to rid themselves of God.
Writing in Nature, vol.123, evolutionist D.M.S Watson confirms this atheistic mindset when he declares: “The theory of evolution is universally accepted not because it can be proven true but because the alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
In fact, evolutionism has been proven false.
Special creation, on the contrary, has much scientific merit yet is considered “incredible” and inadmissible by today’s pseudoscientists who supplant the true scientific method of proving belief by applying the data with adapting the data to fit the belief. And, since they are hostile to God and Christianity, they dismiss and forbid what is established by Creation science.
The Big-Bang cannot be recreated by either Creationist science of the pseudoscience of scientism. However, from other experimental data that exists, together with the Biblical texts on Genesis, there is a far greater support of evidience for Creation than for the Big-Bang, which remains a wild speculation with absolutely no support from any branch of science.
Bu the real object of the exercise to replace true science with scientism is, as I have stated, and as others have observed by the banning of Creation science from learning, to eradicate God from the world. The men who push this are not interested in truth. It’s bigotry from the get go.
as one senior Marxist commentator put it:
“Natural science (evolutionism) became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward. It was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought. … Darwin’s theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma.”
This was the goal from the very beginning. of men like Marx, Hitler and Stalin, the latter two being founding fathers of modern eugenics, which has led to abortion and so-called “death with dignity”.
That’s the horror, Dr. Mengele and his kind, that comes from scientism’s rejection of Creationism. All human morality goes out of the window and man becomes his own God and only the fittest are guaranteed survival. Total demonic madness!
Or, as Pope Pius XII put it in his 1950 Encyclical, Humani Generis:
“A glance at the world outside the Christian fold will familiarise us, easily enough, with the false directions which the thought of the learned often takes. Some will contend that the theory of evolution, as it is called, applies to the origin of all things whatsoever. Accepting it without caution, without reservation, they boldly give rise to monistic or pantheistic speculations which represent the whole universe as left at the mercy of a continual process of evolution. Such speculations are eagerly welcomed by the Communists, who find in them a powerful weapon for defending and popularising their system of dialectical materialism; the whole idea of God is thus to be eradicated from men’s minds…These false evolutionary notions, with their denial of all that is fixed or absolute, or abiding in human experience, have paved the way for a new philosophy of error.”
Now, Drexus, much as I enjoy taking apart your daft ideas, I am a busy man and do not have the time to continue going around in circles with you. You may, however, be assured of my prayers; that God may open both your heart and mind and deliver you from your present darkness into the light.
Part of my text above is in bold when it shouldn’t be, I’m sure you and other readers will spot when it is supposed to end (with the quote in inverted commas).
Editor: I’ve removed the extra bold. At your service!
I will take this opportunity to answer another claim of yours in relation to my assertion that Hitler and Stalin were great mass murderers unparalleled by any Christian. You answered:
“Wow. This never fails… I could have predicted this move a mile away. This has been proven false so many times, it’s become a laughable exercise known to all.
Again, even though Dawkins (among many others) has proven this false time and time again.”
Not nearly good enough. Provide solid evidence please. Prove your hypothesis, in other words, with recorded data.
“Not nearly good enough. Provide solid evidence please. Prove your hypothesis, in other words, with recorded data.”
Would you read it — much less listen to it if I did? No. You’ve proven yourself incapable of reason in the face of clear evidence.
I care not to read another line from your cauldron of ignorance.
From your lengthy, illustrated reply to Josephine:
“It might be that saying “ape” is easier than explaining how we descended from a common ancestor of apes. ”
It’s a while yet, until April 1st. Hold your fire!
I notice that you have ignored two very important comments posted in response to false allegations.
One is the lengthy article with link, correcting the error that Hitler and Stalin were Christians. The second is the quotes from famous Jewish sources in praise of the Church. and Pope Pius XII, during the Second World War.
Why no commentary on those thoroughly well documented posts?
“I care not to read another line from your cauldron of ignorance.”
That’s perfectly fine by me, my last comment more or less asked you to give it up anyway. I simply haven’t the time or inclination to continue debating with irrational, bigoted people pretending to be scientists.
I do hope you come back and let me pick your brains . It’s just a little question that I would like to ask (and you being a Scientist of the Profession which gave us The Nuclear Bomb) which came first – the chicken or the egg. Will await your reply – thanks.
“And then there’s the claim that God made life from non-life, and that God came from nothing — a crazy idea worthy of theists.”
Actually, God didn’t make life from “non-life”. He breathed life into all living things. So life came from the supreme source of life, the force of energy that cannot be created or destroyed.
By the way, nice to see you starting to use the capital G 🙂
I too await the reply – with bated breath, but not much hope.
Isn’t this awful man dead yet? I was under the impression that he was already six feet under.
He is actually six feet above. The same level as the fairies.
No, he’s still very much alive so there’s time yet for his poor soul to be converted and saved.
What a hilarious video of Dawkins making a buffoon of himself as per. Here is my simple response:
“Do you take Dawkins seriously?”
Certainly not! I like the Bishop’s reaction, his response is striking, is it not?
Yes, Cardinal Pell was concise and comical, much to Dawkins’ fury!
It’s a true saying, a person who believes in nothing will believe anything.
Atheists do believe in God, at times of natural disasters when they are looking for someone to blame.
As for Dawkins, I would advise members of the public not to approach him while he is on the loose. He gets more depraved looking every time he surfaces.
This is a fun site – absolute ignoramuses, with not single book or scientific credit to their names, falling all over their stupid selves to congratulate themselves on their losing battles to establish the validity of reading chicken entrails.
Didn’t that Archbishop get arrested for child molestation?
Editor: nobody needs a science degree to recognise patent nonsense when they hear it. Dawkins made an idiot of himself (and not for the first time) and in case you missed it, there were young people literally falling over laughing at his baloney in the video.
As for the “archbishop” dig – well, there you have it. YOU come on here to insult us because we are commenting on an allegedly brilliant scientist talking nonsense, and instead of saying simply that you disagree with him, you make clear that you support him in his attempt to define “nothing”, while we agree with YOU that any priests or bishops who have either abused children or covered it up, SHOULD be arrested, tried, convicted if guilty and imprisoned. Can you see the difference, Sugar Plum? YOU defend the indefensible/ridiculous, we acknowledge wrongdoing, crime and sin, when members of the Church (not “The Church” note), misbehave in so grievous a manner as child abuse. Can you see the difference between your response to Dear Old Dawkins and our response to child abusers who use the Church as a cover for their crimes, Sweetie Pie? I say “as a cover”, by the way, because self-evidently they are not true believers, they are about as Catholic as… well… Richard Dawkins! 😀
“Didn’t that Archbishop get arrested for child molestation?”
No, I don’t think so. You are probably getting mixed up with a member of the royal family who was arrested in America on such a charge.
Ed isn’t it funny ( and am not going to sing Mr Johns song ) Of how people whether ex Catholics or non Catholics instantly jump on the abuse bandwagon not even thinking that if anyone wants rid of these men & women first and foremost it’s Practicing Catholics. Yet the same persons who are so quick to point out our bad clergy won’t even question the National Sex Scandal which cannot even get a chairperson to last more than a few months to launch an enquiry. Now I ain’t got the brains nor the experience to let’s say chair an enquiry such as what cannot get off the ground. But one doesn’t have to walk past a fishmongers to see there’s a bad smell attached to all of this . Yet I bet Mr or Mrs Notabillia hasn’t even written or complained to any authorities. Then again after all there may not be any Catholic Clergy involved in this scandal.
The “abuse bandwagon” is certainly attached to the Catholic Church, now and forever, most particularly because of its inhumane celibacy edicts and general anti-sex nonsense. However, child sex abuse is not solely a Catholic predilection,which leaves all the other scandals and corruption that the church should be equally as famous for – the massive and ongoing banking fraud, the property tax evasions, the horrific and murderous campaigns against family planning in the world, to name a few. And “complaining toany authorities” is a pitiful waste of time, when the authorities are as corrupt as the Catholic Church. Better to enjoy life as an anti-theismist, and read good atheist best-sellers like Richard Dawkins’ million-selling opus.
You’re actually very wrong. The clergy involved in this evil amount to around 0.002% of all priests and religious. The only reason it has been highlighted more in the press is because the world hates God and siezes every opportunity to attack His Church. It’s a bad conscience thing! Plus there’s there’s the element of titilation that some people get from talking about the sexual deviance of fallen clerics.
On a much grander scale is the secular sexual abuse that takes place within families and in general society, which fact dismisses the false accusation that celibacy is linked to child abuse.
You need to see past your ignorance and bitterness if you are to put a reasonable argument that people can engage with. So far you’ve just shown here that you’re not a particularly happy (or informed) individual.
That’s absolutely pathetic. Because of its bizarre fascination with celibacy and its punishing secrecy towards its cult victims, Catholic clergy have fantastically high rates of sex abuse. Your figure is made out of whole cloth, and demonstrably false.
And anti-theism is a wonderful, happy pastime. Happiness consists in living a full, informed, and passionate life, and showing theists the absurdity of their delusions is very fine wine, indeed. Thanks!
Read this and think again. And note the fact that these Catholic priest abusers overwhelmingly abused boys – i.e. these priests were homosexuals and homosexuals are not permitted in Catholic seminaries. But for the ignorant “liberals” running the show, they wouldn’t have set foot over the threshold of any Catholic seminary prior to the “new springtime” which began in 1962 and has yet to show any good fruits.
Goodness, the very first “Named Person” in Scotland – a supposedly top class teacher, who would be considered more trustworthy than a child’s parents in our idiotic government’s estimation, was charged with child abuse and struck off the register as a result. Talk about the lunatics running the asylum. So, as you will see from the Guardian article and many others (I selected that as the first one on the list when I Googled, because I’ve little time to spare right now, but there’s plenty more available) so do your own research and find out the facts before you besmirch every priest in Christendom.
Notabilia is not interested in what is true and what is false, that much is now obvious to me. He/she is a disruptive troll with a clear hatred of the Catholic religion. Time for moderation for that unhappy soul, methinks!
Doesn’t surprise me one bit the only surprise is that they may be struck off the list. When you look at that so called Parliament up in Edinburgh and the moral garbage they talk ,it will be a surprise if anyone with any morals will be a so called Named Person.
Fantastically high rates of abuse? Evidence….?
You also said:
“general anti-sex nonsense”
Given that Catholic families generally have a large number of children, I think your comment above is rather inaccurate!
My God you must be one mixed up or easily pleased hombre. To read some of the garbage that Dawkins comes up with . Also it’s good to see you make full use of your time . As once all those nice Atheistic ideas such Euthanasia becomes Law you never know who’ll be knocking on your door .
Yes, we will be working hard in the coming decade to get euthanasia be the law of the land, as it is already in four states. You, however, will die a horrible, tortuous death clutching whatever religious fakery you’ve wasted your money on. Enjoy.
Yes, early death for those no longer considered human beings of any real worth was also a policy of atheistic despots like Hitler, Stalin and others.
As it happens, the drugs used in palliative care means that there is no longer such a thing as a “horrible, tortuous death” for the majority, so you can cut out the feigned concern for suffering humanity. This is really about atheistic society ridding itself of the burden of the terminally ill, just as it rids itself on a mass scale of the inconvenient innocent in the womb.
As a matter of fact the particular end you describe is reserved solely today for those with a tormented conscience. It’s a different kind of horror and torture from the one you describe, though, and much more acute.
Anyway, for those who die in Christ, who also suffered, there is a nobility in a little expiatory suffering before entering into eternity. But you wouldn’t understand that because you have no faith. The difference between the Christian culture and the atheistic culture, then, boils down to the former being a culture of life and the latter being a culture of death.
Hitler and his demonic cronies would be proud of you.
Therese, there have been great essays, one in “The Christian Delusion,” edited by John Loftus, that have emphatically proven that Hitler was in league with the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic Church bears terrible responsibility for aiding and abetting Nazism, before, during, and after the religious “Gott mit uns” fascistic horror.
Come on! How ridiculous is that statement that the Catholic Church was in league with Hitler, when top Jews are on public record as thanking Pope Pius XII for helping them during the war – more than anyone else, government, or any other institution of any kind.
Here’s one article from a Jewish source that is thoroughly documented in favour of the Church, noting that Pope Pius XII prudently did not issue an official statement in order to protect both Jews and Catholics from persecution
And here’s one comment that should be of particular interest to you:
“Being a lover of freedom, when the
revolution came in Germany I looked to
the universities to defend it, knowing that
they had always boasted of their devotion
to the case of truth; but no, the
universities immediately were silenced.
Then I looked to the great editors of the
newspapers whose flaming editorials in
days gone by had proclaimed their love of
freedom. But they, like the universities,
were silenced in a few short weeks. Only
the Church stood squarely across the
path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing
truth. I never had any special interest in
the Church before, but now I feel a great
affection and admiration because the
Church alone has had the courage and
persistence to stand for intellectual truth
and moral freedom. I am forced thus to
confess, that what I once despised, I now
praise unreservedly.” – Albert Einstein
Click here to read the original, with more praise for the Church from other famous Jews of the era.
A final word to the wise…never trust anything written by anyone with "Loftus" in his name. (That's an "in-joke" which the Catholic bloggers will enjoy) 😀
No, this one is too deeply researched, and the verdict is set. You can fool yourself with selected quotes, but with the concordances, the ratlines, Operation Paperclip, the ultimate failure to do anything to stop the holocaust, there is too great of a record.
The devastating, conclusive essay on the Catholic Church/Hitler collection in the book was not written by your avowed enemy Loftus, but by Hector Avalos, entitled “Atheism was not the Cause of the Holocaust.” It’s concise and corrosive.
Editor: clearly you are determined to think the worst of the Catholic Church – that’s call bigotry; being blind to the truth due to a deep seated hatred. “Selected quotes”? Top politicians and a famous atheist, who admitted that he previously hated the Church?Among other famous people, Jews with no reason to praise the Church for helping Jews during the war, were the opposite true. Are you for real?
Does that mean the allied forces were actually working with the Nazis? They did much less than the Catholic Church to save Jewish lives. In fact, they did nothing. They didn’t even bomb the rail lines running into Auschwitz.
And what about the thousands of Catholic priests and religious who were sent to the death camps? Hardly supports the ridiculous claim that the Church was in league with Hitler, now does it?
If you can’t post common sense comments here then keep quiet.
Obviously, you do not read much, which is why recommending some reading to you would be superfluous. David Swanson’s “War is a Lie” contains an excellent chapter about the Allied failures to take any steps as the Holocaust germinated and then raged. The US was across the ocean, but the German Catholic Church was at the epicenter of Nazism, and was happy to issue the concordance with Hitler. Yes, some Catholics were persecuted and killed during that period, but how does that make up for the vastly greater effort to accommodate the Nazis?
I understand that dealing with buffoonish pygmies on wordpress is not going to lead anywhere, but when posts include the tag “atheism,” and then issue stupid, completely wrong fatwas against atheists, you dunderheads should expect some pushback.
Really, friends and family should have warned you against becoming cult members, but you will, no doubt, continue to waste your lives in pursuit of the indefensible.
“Really, friends and family should have warned you against becoming cult members, but you will, no doubt, continue to waste your lives in pursuit of the indefensible.”
For a person peddling the irrational notions that the universe came from a big explosion, that life came from non-life and that man evolved from apes, I would say those words above are much more applicable to you apostles of scientism, wouldn’t you?
Well maybe you wouldn’t but everyone with an IQ higher than a house plant, who actually studies the evidence objectively, would.
I won’t even bother responding further to your Hitler/Catholic alliance stuff. It’s just too childish and ridiculous. You need to stop reading science fiction, it’s getting you into all kinds of difficulties with reality.
Noting the bile contained within your warm-hearted prediction, I suggest in all charity that you acquire the very simple habit of saying three ‘Hail Marys’ in the morning and three at night as an effective remedy. You have nothing, except perhaps one minute out of your day, to lose and everything to gain which is a wager that you won’t find on offer from any bookmaker. The LAST thing you want to find yourself doing on YOUR deathbed is echoing the final words of Elizabeth I: “All my possessions for a moment of time!”
I’m sure it’s on the Interweb but let me know if you need the actual wording of the prayer.
Spudeater – that is hilarious. Three Hail Marys as an “effective remedy.” When I was about, oh say, five, that was beginning to seem preposterous, and now, it’s about as stupid a statement as an adult can be permitted.
“Effective remedy” – or insipid delusion?
Why does your reply not surprise me? While it currently seems that your brain hasn’t just been washed by atheistic tendencies but dry-cleaned as well, there will come a time when you’ll know that the sentiments behind your reply are completely misguided. I hope that realisation happens in THIS world.
“Three Hail Marys as an “effective remedy.”…it’s about as stupid a statement as an adult can be permitted.”
In atheist hate you say it well, for the same is written above the Gates of Hell.
On the subject of ‘creation v evolution’, it seems my recent letter in the Belfast Telegraph caused quite a stir:-
It seems to me that the sardonic atheists who have appeared here have failed in one thing and succeeded in another.
They have failed to defend Richard Dawkins – in fact, they didn’t even try, but instead proceeded immediately to their success, which was…
…they succeeded in demonstrating that instead of having beliefs of their own, they prefer to mock and attack others’ beliefs with glib oversimplifications, logical fallacies and utter gibberish.
Meanwhile, can they present any scientific evidence to support their claim that God does not exist?
I’m with Drexus on this one. The fact that aspects of the earth’s conditions and properties like its axial tilt (23.4 degrees), the proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere, the percentage of atmospheric ozone, the thickness of the earth’s crust, its orbital eccentricity, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the air and literally dozens of other physical variables are all in the most perfect equilibrium to support life is just a reasonably large coincidence. Statistically speaking, the chances of these multiple factors all being just so is only 1 in 10,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (that’s 1 in 10 to the power of 99. I know that I could have just written that instead but I thought I’d type the whole figure just to demonstrate that it’s not really that impressive) which by my estimation doesn’t make it that unlikely at all.
I’d like to add a bit more but I’m now off to visit Bonzo the Orangutan who wants to show me a new design for a bridge that he’s created. He’s a distant relative, you see, so I don’t mind indulging him.
Absolutely correct! If the earth was altered on her axis by just one half of a degree, we would all either roast to death or freeze to death, so delicately is the earth position in relation to sun and moon.
I would also add that science says that the sun sheds about 5 millions tons of its mass per second (this is from memory!), which means that if we calculate the age of the earth on the silly figures produced by atheistic evolutionists, the sun would once have been so large that it would have frazzled the earth to a crisp in a micro second.
Say hello to your orangutan relative for me and apologise for my non-response to his last email. Something has gone wrong with my inbox software causing a break in communication. I’m trying to trace it back to its origins to see if I can uncover a ‘missing link’.
Bonzo’s old school and in between splitting the atom and trying to find a cheaper source of bananas, he only ever communicates via phone or letter. I fear that email is a hoax (though not on the scale of the one perpetrated by a certain Victorian anthropoid).
I recognise the very Victorian anthropoid and hoax you speak of. I understand he had a great admirer in Karl Marx, who loved the subtle subversion of the hoax so much that he adapted it as a principle tenet of his own hoax, called Communism. Very telling, eh?
Tell Bonzo to give me a call if he gets a lead on cheap bananas. This thread seems to have given me a taste for the old ancestral food!! Off now to polish my knuckles for another day’s walking tomorrow!
Certainly this video is one for the Classic Comedy Gold file. Humour aside, it provides another entry in the catalogue of the nutty professor’s cognitive crimes against humanity, and against reason. Eight centuries ago, any educated teenager would have invited ridicule with such a display. In the case of the great centres of learning, those medieval Catholic institutes known as Universities, such utterances as we see in this video would have led to a rapid exit rather than a cosseted career and celebrity status.
It might only be opinion, but it’s fair to state that along with the Lutheran Revolt and the system of fractional reserve banking, the persistent and largely successful war waged against Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy is a major cause of the centuries’ long descent into the moral sewer in which the Western world is now drowning. In passing it must be said that this anti rational “modern” philosophy is inextricably linked to the Modernist Mind Rot that has infected the human element of the Church over the last one hundred years. Where once the lunatics were banging on the walls and screaming through the keyhole from the outside, they are now in every room grinning at each other. Coincidence it isn’t that the Modernist enemy within the Church have such a loathing for the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Do we need to mention the name Teilhard de Chardin?
Dawkins got one thing right in the video when he said that he is not a philosopher. That hasn’t stopped him forging a lucrative career out of ignoring, failing to understand (wilfully or not?), mispresenting, or summarily dismissing the basics of the Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy which dismantles and obliterates his madcap ideology. He is rather an expert in setting fire to straw men. Dawkins and his camp followers give the impression of failing to remotely grasp the basics of Aristotelian/Thomistic principles concerning act and potency, form and matter, essence and nature, causality, and universals.
In the book length exhibition of ignorance and lack of scholarship entitled “The God Delusion”, Dawkins fails utterly to address much less refute Saint Thomas Aquinas’ proof of the existence of God. Pathetically for someone who is advertised as some sort of public intellectual, he just doesn’t understand the difference between probabilistic empirical theorizing and metaphysical demonstration much less the attributes of God, about which Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote at great length.
The fact that the anti-intellectual dumpster fire offerings of the New Atheists, led by Dawkins, has earned them almost cult following says a great deal about the modern education system and the catastrophic damage that ideologically driven “modern” philosophy has done to Western Civilisation. Dawkins and co., with their populist pap, dumbed down for mass consumption, are the current custodians of the philosophy of Hobbes, Descartes, Locke and Hume which has been infecting minds for four centuries. At the heart of the ideology that Dawkins professes is the fundamental, “dogmatic”, a priori refusal to even countenance the existence of God, man’s immortal soul, and the binding obligations of natural law, “written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them” (Romans 2:15). Such is the state of the toxic philosophical wasteland in academia today that a faculty member of Princeton University, trading under the title of philosopher of bioethics no less, Peter Singer, has no moral problem with necrophilia, bestiality or infanticide. Last year in my own benighted homeland, 62% of the electorate saw fit, in the privacy of the ballot booth, to give assent to the metaphysical absurdity of sodomy being legally recognised as “marriage”. The exact same anti-rational, metaphysical insanity produces the contents of the video at the top of the thread.
In fact we are provided here with a perfect example of atheistic cluelessness running head down straight into the wall of rock solid, reason-grounded Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. How anyone thinks that those who take as an authority, an academic who peddles absurdities such as a “selfish gene” and “memes”, are in a position to throw remarks about believing in the “Easter Bunny” or the “Tooth Fairy” into discussions on the existence of God is rather “counter-intuitive”, and “pretty mysterious” to borrow the words of the Doctor of Delusion.
I’ve been catching up with the blog and, like Athanasius, I think your concluding remark below is priceless and really says it all: “If any logic-defying atheist really can’t grasp the concept of “nothing” in this debate, I suggest they eat nothing for a few days, and report back to us.”
And ditto your concluding paragraph above, ending: How anyone thinks that those who take as an authority, an academic who peddles absurdities such as a “selfish gene” and “memes”, are in a position to throw remarks about believing in the “Easter Bunny” or the “Tooth Fairy” into discussions on the existence of God is rather “counter-intuitive”, and “pretty mysterious” to borrow the words of the Doctor of Delusion.
One can only hope that those in the enemy camp who read this thread can see the difference between the sheer logic of your contributions and the utter confusion-through-to-chaos of the “Doctor of Delusion” and his Daft Disciples.
And don’t forget, if you ever get tired of your day job, you can always try stand up comedy – you’d make a fortune!
Leo thanks for the posts . As regards your homeland voting 62% in favour of Sodimy that really says it all now about the society’s we live in . Along with moral law going out the window civil law comes up right behind it . No matter what Humanists or Atheists preach our Laws are based ( or were based there getting watered down now ) on the 10 Commandments. Hardly has the ink dried on The Sodimy Law now of course the Abortion mob are out in force free Abortion on demand. Now I know we have this over here and the Pro Abort lobby are CONCERNED not of course with the child, but of the mother who has to come out of her homeland to here for an Abortion. What am getting across is that when the plug in the wall is pulled the whole lot falls in . One other thing that the Pro Abort never seemed to get is that The Church now has no say in these laws . Young girls hardly out of puberty with anti Rosary signs around their necks. Just one other thing on the Pro Abort mob, do they ever think to themselves that there just maybe Medical Doctors in Ireland who don’t want to carry out ( as they like to call them ) Procedures.
“Nothing is what rocks dream about” – Aristotle
The name of Lawrence Krauss cropped up in the course of this Dawkins assault on philosophy. Well of if someone is going to enlist Lawrence Krauss to justify claims, it is only fair to draw comparisons with the deluded mythical figure who brought spaghetti to a knife fight. Relying on Lawrence Krauss to reject creation ex nihilo rather disqualifies one from all rational, logical debate with adults.
Confronted with the brick wall of logic, and the inevitable consequences of admitting an uncaused First Cause, when addressing the question of creation ex nihilo, Krauss simply attempts to run around the end by changing the meaning of the term “nothing”, in best Humpty Dumpty fashion.
Before going any further, I should add that what follows draws in large from an excellent article by Peter S Williams MA MPhil, entitled A Universe from Someone: Against Lawrence Krauss
Page 149 of his book, A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, contains the candid admission that the kind of ‘nothing’ Krauss has been discussing up to that point is:
“the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space. For the moment, I will assume space exists, with nothing at all in it, and that the laws of physics also exist. Once again, I realise that in the revised versions of nothingness that those who wish to continually redefine the word so that no scientific definition is practical, this version of nothing doesn’t cut the mustard”.
Like other high priests of aggressive atheism, Krauss has tried to bar admittance of theology, philosophy and indeed basic logic to the debate. One gets the distinct impression from these individuals and their disciples that rejection of God is the starting point. All evidence must be crammed and pressed and chopped, if not ignored, in order to fit into the atheist’s leaky test tube.
As William E. Caroll writes: “The desire to separate the natural sciences from the alleged contamination of the ‘word games’ of philosophy and theology is not new; now, as always, it reveals an impoverished philosophical judgement.”( William E. Caroll, ‘The Science of Nothing’)
At least Krauss is upfront about his mindset.
“I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist,” says Krauss, “but I’d much rather live in a universe without one.”( Lawrence M. Krauss, ‘Lawrence M. Krauss, on A Universe From Nothing’, Time Out, Sydney)
Krauss has little time for philosophy. In fact he shows his contempt for philosophy when he states that: “the only knowledge we have is from experiments … the only knowledge we have about the world is empirical” (Lawrence M. Krauss, ‘Unbelievable: A Universe From Nothing? Lawrence Krauss vs. Rodney Holder’)
As atheist philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci muses:
“I don’t know what’s the matter with physicists these days. It used to be that they were an intellectually sophisticated bunch, with the likes of Einstein and Bohr doing not only brilliant scientific research, but also interested, respectful of, and conversant in other branches of knowledge, particularly philosophy. These days it is much more likely to encounter physicists like Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking, who merrily go about dismissing philosophy for the wrong reasons, and quite obviously out of a combination of profound ignorance and hubris (the two often go together, as I’m sure Plato would happily point out). The latest such bore is Lawrence Krauss, of Arizona State University.” ( Massimo Pigliucci, ‘Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex’)
In A Universe From Nothing, Krauss spends all but 4 pages (cf. pp.174-178) addressing questions besides the fundamental question of whether one can get a universe from nothing.
As atheist scientist Jerry Coyne complains: “much of the book was not about the origin of the universe, but dealt with other matters, like dark energy and the like, that had already been covered in other popular works on physics. Indeed, much of Krauss’s book felt like a bait-and-switch.” (Jerry Coyne, ‘David Alberts pans Lawrence Krauss’ New Book’)
As with Dawkins, Krauss’ assault on logic runs head first into the famous claim that ‘out of nothing, nothing comes’ (a claim that goes back to Parmenides of Elea in the 5th century B.C), a claim that is clearly true by definition. ‘Nothing’ doesn’t have any properties capable of doing anything – certainly not creating something. Hence, nothing can come ‘out of’ (i.e. be caused by) nothing.
Saint Thomas Aquinas summarises the issue as follows:
“That which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, quoted by Robert E. Maydole, ‘The Third Ways Modalized’)
Krauss actually admits on page 152 of A Universe From Nothing that “it would be disingenuous to suggest that empty space endowed with energy, which drives inflation, is really nothing” while on page 172 he acknowledges: “All of the examples I have provided thus far indeed involve creation of something from what one should be tempted to consider as nothing, but the rules for that creation, i.e. the laws of physics, were pre-ordained. Where do the rules come from?”
By page 174 of A Universe From Nothing Krauss still hasn’t gotten round to addressing the million dollar question: “I have focused on either the creation of something from preexisting empty space or the creation of empty space from no space at all… I have not addressed, directly, however … what some may view as the question of First Cause.”
Quite so. You can put that to music, Lawrence.
The attempt to deny the existence of God by means of Krauss’ “Humpty Dumpty” approach to language (“a word means just what I choose it to mean”) resembles in force of argument nothing so much as the hole in the donut. Simply put, Krauss cannot justify his attempt to deny logic by means of empirical evidence, the only type he appears receptive to.
If any logic-defying atheist really can’t grasp the concept of “nothing” in this debate, I suggest they eat nothing for a few days, and report back to us.
Thank you for two excellently researched and documented posts, concisely presented, it was a pleasure to read them. I chuckled at the last line of the second post which read:
“If any logic-defying atheist really can’t grasp the concept of “nothing” in this debate, I suggest they eat nothing for a few days, and report back to us.”
Leo there was a very interesting debate a few years ago in the U.S. It concerned Hawkings theory on Black Holes off of which he’s made £Millions as you know. Hawkings theory was that no matter or light could escape from a Black Hole because of the tremendous gravitational pull . One other scientist at least disputed this . Now we know the fragile state of Hawkings health and at the time it was said he wasn’t keeping to well but would nonetheless travel to the U.S. to put his theory across. There was a little talk back and forth then Mr Hawkings said ” well maybe something could escape from a Black Hole,but then again maybe not ” as far as Stephen Hawkings was concerned as his communications is now very bad the debate was finished. Nothing like hedging your bets eh . What am really trying to get across here is how such so called brilliant minds as Hawkings ( as far as am concerned) have wasted so much of their life’s on theories nothing more and nothing less. After all it’s not as if he’s going to jump in The Shuttle fly 400light years drop an apple into a Black Hole then see if he can retrieve it . So now we come to their Aitheistic beliefs and again there only theories. Like Black Holes they cannot prove anything but and this is the big but . They have the media spotlight on them waiting to print every word that comes from their mouths . Just as an afterthought this reminds me of when Kenny Dalglish was being questioned by the media about a player he was supposed to sign . When asked if it would go through Kenny said ” well maybe aye and maybe naw ” .
Faith of Our Fathers
Right now the only priority that the Irish political class and media appear to have for themselves is repealing Ireland’s constitutional right to life of the unborn. The country is falling down, rural Ireland is going to be reduced to a bird sanctuary, and this evil agenda is on the airwaves practically every day. The propaganda is incessant. Come to think of it, birds, bats and snails in some parts of the country will have more rights than the unborn if the enemies of the Social Kingship of Christ succeed once more. And this is part and parcel of the rejection of Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics i.e. the rejection of belief in God, man’s immortal soul with its eternal ends, and natural law.
The very same applies with the issue of atheist scientists. You made a crucial point about their theories. Their atheistic ideology is the starting point and everything else has to be either ignored or hammered and twisted and trimmed to fit in with that. Don’t readers take my word for it. It’s worth repeating the quote from evolutionist, Richard Lewontin, posted earlier, in which he confessed:
“We stayed in the side of science, despite the patent absurdity of some of its constructions, despite its failure to accomplish many of its extravagant promises in relation to health and life, despite the tolerance of scientific community in favour of certainly non-proved theories, because we have a previous compromise, a compromise with Materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science, in some way, compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenon of the world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our previous adhesion to Materialist conception of universe to create a display of investigation and a set of concepts that produce Materialist explanations, it does not matter how contradictory, how deceiving and how mythological they are to the non-initiated. Beyond that, to us, the Materialism is absolute; we cannot permit that the ‘Divine Foot’ gets in by our door” (New York Reviews of Books, 1987).
Atheists who reject Aristotelian/Thomistic principles either can’t or won’t grasp the difference between probabilistic empirical theorizing and the metaphysical demonstration that they are presented with. It is nothing less than a giant swindle that science is somehow enlisted in the cause of rejecting believe in God. In reality, if science is to be called to the witness stand, the exact opposite applies. If there is no purpose or order in the natural world i.e. there are final causes as Aristotle or Saint Thomas Aquinas would say, then scientific enquiry is completely without underpinnings. For whatever motives, by latching on to the toxic rejection of Aristotelian formal and final causes which is central to the anti-rational “modern” philosophy championed by Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Hume and their long list of camp followers, atheistic scientists cut off the bough they are sitting on. And don’t anyone count on them grasping that fact, much less admitting it.
Here’s a very useful resource.
Someone who wants a proper Thomistic exploration of issues involved in a debate on the existence of God and has an hour free should look at the embedded video entitled “Does Richard Dawkins Exist?”
The myth that all life came by chance from one cell, which in turn came from non-living matter, is a speculative, dis- credited hypothesis, a philosophical naturalism wrapped in pseudo-science. I’m sure there is no shortage of dis-credited hypotheses doing the rounds, so what is so dangerous about evolutionism, and what makes its fundamentalist adherents so fanatical.
Evolutionism allows men to profess, without appearing mad, that things make themselves. It, so they think, confirms them in their rejection of the ex nihilo creation of life and matter by God. Submission of will to belief in a Creator and Divine Lawgiver is no longer required of a believing evolutionist.
The only explanation for the endless propagation of this unscientific theory, is that evolution is actually an unscientific means of war against against Christ, His Church and Christian civilization.
Why is evolutionist naturalism kept alive with such fanaticism, and regardless of all reasonable argument? Well, think of the highest towers in the disbelieving, revolting against God, City of Man that stretches as far as the eye can see. Think how the evils of Modernism. Marxism, Secular Humanism, and Eugenics topple without the foundation of evolutionism to underpin them.
Biologist, Julian Huxley, shows how the dogma of evolution imposes itself as the foundation of the modern relativist religion:
“In the evolutionist way of thinking, there is no place for supernatural (spiritual) beings capable of affecting the course of human events, nor is there necessity of them. Earth was not created. It was formed by evolution. The human body, the mind, the soul, and everything that was produced, including laws, moral, religions, gods, etc., are entirely results of evolution, by means of the natural selection”. (Cfr. HUXLEY, J. Evolution after Darwin, p. 246)
Evolutionism is one of the “dogmas” of the modern atheistic mind.
Applied to theology and philosophy, belief in Evolutionism can be pointed as one of the causes of the triumphant relativism in our days. The logical outcome is the rejection of Absolute Truth, and with that, dogma and morality. Evolutionism is not biological science, but a naturalistic dogma of relativist metaphysics. So relativism then becomes an absolute principle!
Paul Lemoine, President of the Geological Society of France and Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, wrote:
“Evolution is a sort of dogma in which its clergymen no longer believe, although they uphold it to the people: it is necessary to have courage to say this so that the men of the future generation guide their researches in a different way” (Encyclopédie Française, Tome V, ps. 5-82-3, 5-82-8)
L. Harrison Matthews, evolutionist geologist confesses:
“The fact of Evolution being the backbone of Biology and that Biology is therefore in the particular position of a science founded upon a not-confirmed theory – is it then science or faith? Believing in Evolution is, thus, the exact parallel of believing in a special creation – both are concepts that believers take as true, but neither one nor the other was capable, so far, of proving anything” (L. H. Matthews, Introduction for the “Origin of Species”, of Charles Darwin, Dent and Sons, London, 1.971, p. XI, apud Duane T. Gish, op. cit. p. 15).
Richard Dawkins, close minded evolutionist scientist, informs us that Darwin makes it possible to man to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” ( Darwin’s Black Box, M. Behe, op. cit. p. 252).
Another known evolutionist, Richard Lewontin, confessed:
“We stayed in the side of science, despite the patent absurdity of some of its constructions, despite its failure to accomplish many of its extravagant promises in relation to health and life, despite the tolerance of scientific community in favour of certainly non-proved theories, because we have a previous compromise, a compromise with Materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science, in some way, compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenon of the world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our previous adhesion to Materialist conception of universe to create a display of investigation and a set of concepts that produce Materialist explanations, it does not matter how contradictory, how deceiving and how mythological they are to the non-initiated. Beyond that, to us, the Materialism is absolute; we cannot permit that the ‘Divine Foot’ gets in by our door” (New York Reviews of Books, 1987).
That evolutionism has been moulded by factors other than Biology is confirmed by the following observation. I trust that evolutionists will not quibble with source.
“Reading the detailed report of Schweber of the moments that preceded the formulation of the natural selection theory by Darwin, I was particularly touched by the absence of decisive influences from its own field, Biology. The immediate precursors were a social scientist [Comte], an economist [Adam Smith] and a statistician [Adolph Quetelet]” (S. Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p.55).
And so what, someone will say, protesting apathy towards matters theological and philosophical. Maybe the following will disturb their mental lethargy.
If the theory of Darwinist evolution had its origin in Darwin’s philosophical and economical readings, it provided a great vehicle for the propagation of Marxist materialism. In effect, “Marx was a great admirer of Darwin” (Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p.57).
“When the ”Origin of Species” showed up, Marx and Engels, the apostles of the world as a flow, saluted it with great joy. In 1860, Marx wrote to Engels: “Although developed in crude English style, this is the book that contains the basis of our perceptions in Natural History” (Howard E. Gruber, Darwin on Man, The University Chicago Press1981, p.71).
“It is amazing how Darwin recognizes, between animals and plants, his English society, with the division of work, the competition, the openness to new markets, the “invention” and the Malthusian “fight for survive”. It is the bellum omnium contra omnes (the war of all against all) of Hobbes” (The Panda’s Thumb, Jay Gould, p.56-57).
The closed ties between Evolutionism and Marxism is proved by the witness of Bishop O’Gara, Bishop of Yuanling, in China. According to the testimony of this Prelate, when the Communist Liberation Army of Mao Tsé Tung entered in a town, all the population was forced to participate in a course of propaganda and indoctrination, and, the first lesson was not about the doctrine of Karl Marx, but about Evolutionism, trying to convince the people that man came from the monkey. ( Patrick Troadec, L’Évolutionisme, French apostile, p. 2).
I don’t think there is any need to spell out the attraction that evolutionist-inspired racial theories held for the motorised Attila operating out of Berlin between 1933 and 1945.
“Classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily for such a long time by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” – Nobel prize-winner Sir Ernest Chain, co-discoverer of penicillin, 1970.
Repeated attempts to dress evolutionism up as science need to be treated with a lot of scepticism, particularly when in matters concerning origins, neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.
One absolutely essential point to be made in any discussion of the hypothesis of evolution, is that microevolution and macroevolution are totally different.
MICRO-evolution is a fact of science that concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. MACRO-evolution on the other hand is the unproven hypothesis that one species “evolves” over time into something entirely different.
It is therefore very important to be on our guard against any bait switch tactics employed by evolutionists which attempt to persuade people that what takes place in micro evolution is proof of macro evolution. Such attempts are at best, scientifically flawed.
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.”
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]
So, in the interest of clarification, I think it is reasonable, when referring to evolution, to understand it as a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world.
Here’s one very obvious question that I expect jumps out at everyone straight away. If a giraffe is related to an elephant, or a zebra is related to a horse, where exactly can I see all the intermediary “species” between those creatures and their ancestors? Is it not correct to say that under evolution changes to species take place very gradually? For that to be true, there must surely be a great many physically distinguishable creatures all along the spectrum of “evolutionary” change. And what exactly is a zebra, or a giraffe, or a flamingo currently “evolving” into? Where are the transitory generations?
For evolution to stand scrutiny, we should be awash with material evidence, bringing us back step by speculative step to whatever the common ancestors are supposed to have been. Is it not true that laboratory experiments on stratified sedimentary rock formations have shown the deposition of sedimentary particles to have taken place rapidly? Is it not logical to deduct that fossils found in a rock that took less than a year to form must have lived together at the same time? Is it not true that for the hypothesis of evolution to be a reality, billions of years of gradual change are required?
And forgetting about any fossil record, the “intermediate forms” of today should be visible to us right now, walking around. There must be a multitude of creatures, at every stage of development, at any moment in time.
Objective evolutionists at least recognise the risk involved in presuming that evolution has taken place:
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, from Johns Hopkins University, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, evolutionist, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
Evolutionist, David Kitts acknowledges the issue and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), “Search for the Holy Transformation,” Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
When it comes to the fossil record, evolution is one giant collection of enormous gaps. And of course, we have had the hoaxes, or frauds. In the case of Man, we need only recall Java man, Piltdown man, Peking man, and Nebraska man. There never has been found and there never will be found anything that is more than ape and less than man.When fraudulent means are used to provide so-called evidence of Evolution, it is reasonable to draw the obvious conclusions.
Let’s be clear, macro evolution and “speciation” (the evolutionary transformation into “new” species), no matter how much is said about natural selection, genetic variation, and mutation, are scientifically unfounded speculations.
All the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:
“New” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
“New” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
Let’s hear what some evolutionist authorities have said concerning natural selection:
“If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
For those who refuse to accept, or even consider, that the order and beauty of the universe reflect the will of a Divine Creator, I might end with the words of the great G. K. Chesterton:
“To an atheist, the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody.”
I see our atheist contributors have vanished today. Do you think it might be because they have no answers to the facts presented?
No, just waiting for an intelligent answer from the theists — or did you forget already?
You’re good with the one-liners but not so clever when it comes to putting a rational case for your irrational denial of God. At least Dawkins attempts to hide his lunacy behind some intellectual waffle. Still makes people laugh, but credit to him for trying.
Answer the questions I presented first — if you think my position is so irrational.
I have spent some time trawling to see if I could find the question which you say you “presented first” and I cannot find it.
If you repeat it here, I’ll do my best to provide an answer.
Your objectives have been revealed. You care not for any objective truth in dialog — only talking points, untenable to anything constructive. Calculated in scoring subjective points as aimed more valuable than truth.
Go pretend with someone else’s time. You’re dishonest in your objectives.
Nonsense. It’s YOUR objectives that are suspect. You have not come on here to explain the meaning of Dawkins’ ridiculous “something from nothing” blether, but to attack God again. That seems to be the sum and substance of “science” these days. That’s the point at which the “with-it” thinking of contemporary “scientists” and atheists meet: they are both intent on rubbishing religious belief, especially Catholic belief. Their entire philosophy rests on disproving the existence of God, and since that cannot be done, scientifically or in any other way, by any other means, they settle for rubbishing belief in God. See if I care…
In not one of your posts have you addressed the issue of that daft nonsensical proposition – that something can come from nothing – oh and that we have to accept that uncritically because, well, after all, “something mysterious” happened at the start of the universe. You bet. Still, not the “something” you expect a scientist to argue. They usually want empirical evidence, stuff you can see and observe. Mysteries? Used to mock us Catholics for talking about the Mysteries of Faith, so I suppose it’s a step forward to identify some mysteries of science.
It’s certainly more than a little interesting; we’re now being told that it’s perfectly logical to exercise faith in “something mysterious” happening at the start of the universe, as long as it’s not God, the Creator of the Universe. Yes, I’d say that is very interesting indeed. With bells on, if you’ll excuse my descent into ungrammaticalness… 😀
First you must present properly constructed questions. All I’ve read from you so far is a litany of mocking denials.
I’m waiting for your isuperior intellect to answer to Faith of Our Fathers very simple, and I’m sure very easily explained, answer regarding chickens and eggs. Did you miss it, or don’t you know the answer? Do expound.
“isuperior”? What word is this?
“…to answer to Faith of Our Fathers very simple…”
What manner or grammatical blunder is this? I’m not even sure what’s trying to be said here.
It’s always a mistake in debate to mock your opponent for a slip of the tongue, or in this case, the keyboard. If you really can’t comprehend the question, why not ask politely for a clarification?
I think it’s clear that Therese meant to write as follows: “I’m awaiting your superior intellect to answer Faith of our Fathers’ simple question and I’m sure easily explained answer regarding chickens and eggs [which came first?] Did you miss it, or don’t you know the answer? Do expound.”
I recall the blogger Faith of our Fathers (FOOF) asking that question and you have still not answered it, so Therese (and the rest of us) would be interested in your answer.
So, you want me to answer the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg — as somehow relevant to anything about the Big-Bang comment from the video of this article?
Nope. Nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory. Just answer the question – which came first, the chicken or the egg? Heavens, you’re clearly struggling to answer, so let me help you. The answer is obvious, man. The chicken came from nothing and the egg came from something, so, logically, something came from nothing and it’s a MYSTERY whether the chicken really was the something or whether the egg was the something but one of them has to be the nothing. It’s obvious. Something mysterious went on between the chicken and the egg. Ask Krauss. Don’t you understand that?
“which came first, the chicken or the egg”
This is an old thought experiment — moot in defining the origins of a species as definitive to an ever changing description of imperceptible shifts in physiology.
The argument goes: at what point is a species no longer a species, but something different. The key component of this exercise rests with an objective description verses a biological description of change.
Were we to be critical of the definition of what a human is, technically, we could only maintain that description for a single generation. For each generation takes on imperceptibly small changes — as defined by the shape of the respective environment.
Now, if your really interested in how this works, I’ve written articles that describe this. Further, natural selection and artificial selection both play on the response mechanism of entropic adaptation.
As an example, let’s say a specific race of humans — Australians — narrowed their genetic profile by discouraging marriage with any other race. At the same time, let’s say all other races on earth mingled equally with each other. If you roll forward 10 generations, what might you find?
For tha Austrailans, their genetic profile will have adapted to a static environment — allowing entropic adaptation to refine their genetic responses to a higher degree. Outside of Australia, the whole world would have a more homogeneous genetic profile — blending the distinctiveness of many races into a more common profile.
Roll forward 100 generations and the genetic delta between Australia and the rest of the world would be quite distinct.
The question then becomes, when did Australians become Australians? And when did the composite race of the world become indistinct? The answer is always weighed against the definition of what an Australian is or what a member of the human species is.
With imperceptible changes happening from generation to generation, at what point does the definition stray from the current understanding?
Many would postulate that humans today are no longer humans — as understood from 200 years ago. From the perspective of science, our species is defined by how a species functions in a given environment. Since our environment is not defined only by physical environment (trees, soil, temperature, etc.) but by the development of our most invested survival trait: Sociality. So, the definition of what a human includes the developed social capability we depend upon for survival.
To that, we are completely different that the humans of 200 years ago — for our environments are magnitudes apart.
A scientist who gets thrown by a single letter typo at the start of a word to the extent that he cannot decipher the word’s meaning? That doesn’t bode well for the scientific community. Ditto the “grammatical blunder” you highlight.
Insulting those you consider inferior in intellect to yourself is not a good way to impress anyone. Quite the contrary.
I note that you have not addressed the content of Leo’s posts. But then, you haven’t really addressed the content of any posts on here, except to mock and deny what is patently obvious to all rational human beings. Sad, that!
Now that Editor and Athanasius have very kindly clarified the meaning of my post to you so that you may understand it (and as you were unable to perform such a simple function yourself I must withdraw my suggestion that your intellect is superior), please do now answer Faith of Our Fathers’ very simple question. Either that, or confess that you are unable to do so.
Better say nothing yet, but maybe we’ve “sent them homeward, tae think again”.
I see you were on the receiving end of a bit of waffle and wind earlier. You can tell when the opposition is running out of arguments: the spiteful ad hominem attacks start. I’m inclined to take that as a concession, even if it won’t ever be admitted.
If they come over the hill again, I’ll be very interested in the atheist explanation for moral law and it’s binding, obligatory force. And the usual mutterings about some social contract, “as long as no one is hurt”, non-aggression pact, don’t even begin to count as persuasive evidence.
I’ve been reading your comments and they are of your usual high standards. You should write a book!
My one wish is that I had the knowledge and literary prowess of Leo. Outstanding.
Margaret Mary and Petrus
Thank you very much for those words. I think that the flattery police will be knocking on both your doors in the near future.
Any literary capabilities are an illusion, believe me. Truth be told, it’s mostly bodgering posts together, passing on the work of others. I wouldn’t have thought, though, that my efforts compare with Editor’s or Athanasius’ when it comes to expressing things, and putting right those in error. And I can think of other bloggers too who can say all that needs to be said, in a few lines, without testing anyone’s attention span.
As for books, I think my station is with the readers. Well maybe if I stapled two or three marathon posts together, I might have the quantity anyway. Amazon wouldn’t be rushed off their feet with orders but at least I’d have my Christmas shopping well and truly sorted for once.
For some reason I’m reminded of the following:
Mick was talking to a friend one day: “Ye know, this speed reading crack is great. Yesterday, I read War and Peace from cover to cover.”
Friend: “Right. That sounds a bit impressive. What’s the storyline then?”
Mick: “I think it’s about Russia”.
You underestimate your talent for writing, as well as over-estimating mine. Like the others, I find your contributions very concise and informative. But I’m quite sure we all recognise that whatever our individual talents, they are a gift from God and we will have to render an account for them. There now, that should keep us all very humble.
“I wouldn’t have thought, though, that my efforts compare with Editor’s or Athanasius’ when it comes to expressing things…”
Ever humble, our Leo. Of COURSE your efforts compare very well with Athanasius… 😀
And LOVED the joke. Priceless!
I would like to echo the praise of Leo for his excellent contributions to this thread. Excellent work.
Its amazing to think that many secular persons regard the religious as ignorant and backward, yet even just to scratch the surface of topics like this (never mind go into detail) undoubtedly shows who it is who is really ignorant and credulous.
Given that we are now at the “going round and round in circles” stage with this thread, and given that it has become acrimonious in the extreme, I am now going to close it.
Thanks to all who contributed. And to our atheist friends – God bless you!
Comments are closed.