1. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177432 by stevencarrwork on May 9, 2008 at 4:59 am

Dawkins interview with Humphreys was wonderful.

Humphreys spluttering out that he has to have double-standards because everyone knows clergymen say things with no arguments to back them up....

2. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177427 by stevencarrwork on May 9, 2008 at 4:46 am

The Today Programme carries Thought for the Day, and excludes atheists from Thought for the Day, because otherwise the Today programme would be entirely secular and never show religious thought.

As you can see from the interview with the Cardinal, this reason for discriminating against atheists is pure poppycock.

3. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177040 by stevencarrwork on May 8, 2008 at 1:46 pm

What pompous waffle the man talks!

'God is said by Christian theology to be ineffable, beyond our categories and thought capacity. '

Beyond our categories?

Just to show how incapable of holding a thought in his mind he is, he also writes ' believe in the God revealed to us by Jesus, who is the father who forgives us, accepts us, and loves us.'

So God is beyond our categories and can be categories as a father who forgives us...

It is a waste of time expecting leading Christian intellectuals to produce a logical train of thought.

' For Paul these are positive glimpses of truth of a God who surpasses human categories, both in his transcendent otherness and in the radical closeness to humanity he establishes'

Radical closeness? Transcendent otherness.

This is just gibberish. Simply spouting meaningless syllables.

4. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170730 by stevencarrwork on April 27, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Why is Stein worried that American cannot respond to 3 wars at once?

What is so difficult about praying for 3 places at once, rather than praying for just 1?

Or does Stein turn atheist as soon as he wants something done, and knows damn well that there is no god who is going to do it?

5. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165583 by stevencarrwork on April 21, 2008 at 6:12 pm

DAWKINS
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

CARR
This has been answered by top Christian apologist Paul Copan at

http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45&ap=6

In this amazing article, one of the leading Christian philosophers in the world writes such things as 'What then of the children? Death would be a mercy, as they would be ushered into the presence of God and spared the corrupting influences of a morally decadent culture.'

6. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164998 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2008 at 11:19 pm

William Lane Craig has challenged Richard Dawkins to a debate

William Lane Craig has a wonderful article about why it is not always wrong to kill whole tribes of men, women and children.

It can be found at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

As modern day Christians write articles defending genocide, they should refrain from criticising genocide.

7. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164993 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2008 at 11:13 pm

What must it have been like to be a Jewish child growing up in a Nazi Germany?

Paul Copan has recently written a long article as a refutation of Richard Dawkins.

It can be found at http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45

For some reason, the wise words of Paul Copan come to mind 'What then of the children? Death would be a mercy, as they would be ushered into the presence of God and spared the corrupting influences of a morally decadent culture.'

In Christian eyes, what exactly is wrong with killing whole tribes of men , women and children?

Why, you are doing the children a favour!

8. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164969 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2008 at 10:37 pm

There is a fantastic picture of Ben Stein, a spray can and a Nazi belt-buckle at
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/look-ma-i-can-q.html

9. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164961 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Hitler had some interesting views on the Darwinian concept that man had evolved from other animals.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen ' was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Hitler was influenced by the ideas of the Reverend Thomas Malthus, as was Darwin, and indeed as was everybody in the 20th century.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149275 by stevencarrwork on March 25, 2008 at 11:26 am

CLEARTHINKER
Since you want to cite teh table talk I wonder why you left out this - which RD cites. "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity."

CARR
I see Clearthinker is still using the English translation of the doctored French version....

What is the original German of this?

That should keep David Robertson quiet for a while, until he pops up again and repeats this doctored quote again.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149273 by stevencarrwork on March 25, 2008 at 11:19 am

I see Clearthinker simply scoffs at the documented record that Hitler devoted a lot of energy in 1942 to making sure that the Oberammagau Passion Plays took place.

This is recorded in Table Talk - the German version, and not the English translation of the doctored French version.

Hitler wanted the Plays to take place, because Hitler knew that the Gospel crucifixion scenes were anti-Semitic, and he wanted people to know who had killed Jesus. (The Pope had told them who killed Jesus in his 1937 Encylical 'Mit Brennender Sorge', but they needed reminding , it seems)

But Clearthinker won't accept anything that contradicts his beliefs - even when it is there in black and white.

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149008 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2008 at 11:30 pm

BONZAI
Edwin Black provided documented evidence, including Hitler's private correspondence with American eugenicists that proves convincingly that Hitler was inspired by "science" in his "final solution".

CARR
And still not a single quote by anybody where Hitler even mentions Darwin, let alone claim that it is true that his beloved Aryan-race descended from apes.

Hitler explicitly rejected the idea that man had evolved. I gave a quote of him questioning the whole idea, in words which a creationist would be proud to speak.

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148831 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2008 at 2:54 am

I have seen one of the Rassenlehre pictures used by the Nazis to teach children.

It says 'All great cultures of the past fell only because the originally creative race became extinct through blood poisoning'

'Alle grossen Kulturen der Vergangenheit gingen nur zugrunde, weil die ursprunglich schopferische Rasse durch Blutvergiftung abstarb'

This is not Darwinism.

What were Hitler's priorities in the middle of the war?

According to Table Talk, on 5 July 1942, Hitler was preoccupied with making sure that the Oberammagau Passion plays took place.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148823 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2008 at 2:34 am

The Nazis banned books on what they called 'primitive' Darwinism.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148802 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2008 at 1:01 am

DAWKINS
' Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin...'

CARR
Very likely. Hitler seemed to have the same view of Darwin that creationists have.

Hitler explicity rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, which were recored by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)



And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Hitler was a creationist....

16. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133214 by stevencarrwork on February 25, 2008 at 9:49 pm

WYATTROBERTS
For example, he makes much of the fact that a man named Japheth "sacrificed" his only daughter in the Old Testament (Dawkin's claimed Japheth "cooked her.") First of all, there is no consensus by theologians on what actually happened. More to the point, though, the Bible doesn't say whether God approved or disapproved of Japheth's actions, whatever they were.

CARR
Jephthah had his daughter killed because he promised his alleged god he would have killed the first thing he saw.

Hebrews 11:32 calls this daughter-killer one of the herooes of faith of Israel.

Of course, we get spin doctors like WyattRoberts trying to distort the Bible because people are revolted by what it actually says....

17. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132966 by stevencarrwork on February 25, 2008 at 1:18 pm

AIKMAN (page 209)
...in first-century Palestine, the testimony of women was so utterly worthless...

THE HOLY BIBLE
'Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony... (John :39)

The Bible is crap. Even its defenders have no hesitation in pointing out what rubbish the Gospel writers wrote.

People believing the testimony of women? The Bible writers were having a laugh.

18. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132959 by stevencarrwork on February 25, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Aikman's book seems much better than the other books.

So if this is the best they've got, then there are no worries.

Aikman cannot find any evidence at all that theism is true.

So the Emperor really does have no clothes, and even his courtiers cannot produce evidence of clothing.

19. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132518 by stevencarrwork on February 24, 2008 at 10:47 pm

The case of Antony Flew illustrates how open-minded atheists are.

20. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132514 by stevencarrwork on February 24, 2008 at 10:32 pm

CAMPOS
Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?

CARR
This is simultaenously a ludicrous attack on Dawkins and also a perfectly standard description of mainstream Christianity.

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

Has anybody ever heard of 'projection'?

21. Fleabytes

Comment #131769 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 7:58 am

ROBERTSON
And I am grateful to you for citing Hitler’s Table Talk which tells us conclusively what Hitler thought about Christianity. “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity�.

CARR
There is no such quote in my original German version of Table Talk.

Perhaps I missed it.

I'm sure Robertson will give us the original German and the date of the entry....

22. Fleabytes

Comment #131761 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 6:46 am

Early Christians ,of course, has no knowledge of Judas.

When the author of Hebrews wanted to write to Christians with an example of somebody missing the grace of alleged god in return for a paltry sum, he came up with the example of Esau.

23. Fleabytes

Comment #131754 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 6:21 am

ROBERTSON
It would be wrong to judge a belief system by the more extreme and eccentric views whatever that belief system.

CARR
Let me see.

Jesus believed the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave to condemn people.

The Gospel of Luke claimed the foetus John the Baptist leapt for joy in the womb when the pregnant Mary entered the room.

And it claims a real angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, and conveyed a real message.

Hello! Reality calling! This was a dream.

Dreams aren't real. It was a dream. It wasn't real.

And 2 Peter mentions the existing of a talking donkey.

But according to Robertson, we are not allowed to judge Christianity by the absurdities that the writers of the Bible believed.

The book is a collection of absurd stories that only a nutcase could take seriously.

24. Fleabytes

Comment #131753 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 6:11 am

LENIN
*That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party.
We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various "Christians".

.....

The revolutionary proletariat will succeed in making religion a really private affair, so far as the state is concerned.

ROBERTSON
Bakunin and Lenin both argued that religion was "a virus which needed to be eradicated â€" they both advocated and implemented the killing of believers as a social obligation."

CARR
While Robertson is revealed once more as a liar, the fact remains that even if Lenin had butchered a million Orthodox priests, that would not make god exist.

25. Fleabytes

Comment #131675 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 1:54 am

ROBERTSON
Incidentally the atheist zeitgeist (I dare not call it creed) may have moved on but it was originally not only speiest but also racist, believing that evolution meant not only the superiority of the human race, but also the superiority of white Europeans over the Africans, Chinese etc.

CARR
More historical revisionism from somebody who is little better than a Holocaust denier in his tactics.

Robertson simply disgusts me. He is a horrible loathsome man.

I'm sure he will regard this as martyrdom.

Like the one-armed person I knew who thought everybody disliked him because he had one arm.

Everybody disliked him because he was horrible.

Same for Robertson. People react to him, not his beliefs.


As for claims of racism being 'atheistic'.

I guess all those slave owners in the Deep South were atheists.

And the Klu Klux Klan - all atheists.

19th century racism was hardly confined to atheists.

And it happens that 20th century Soviet Russia had almost no problem with racism, apart from anti-Semitism, which traces its roots back to religion.

26. Fleabytes

Comment #131674 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 1:49 am

Why does Robertson think that anybody will post on Robertson's message board when he and his kind deleted every single thing that had ever been posted on it?

27. Fleabytes

Comment #131672 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 1:45 am

What is this utter garbage Robertson spews about evidence only being what can be proved in a lab?

Is the evidence that Arsenal are top of the Premier League something that can only be proved in lab?

Why can't the man argue properly? You know, not talk idiocy and complain when people call him an idiot.

28. Fleabytes

Comment #131671 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 1:39 am

Robertson appears to be claiming that Christianity is happy juice.

29. Fleabytes

Comment #131668 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 1:32 am

By the way, David Robertson offered Dawkins 1000 words, claiming he was so generous.

David Robertson's last post contained 1470 WORDS (including quotes).

That was just one post by Robertson in response to Paul Kirby.

The hypocrisy of the guy is amazing.

He crows about his committment to free speech when he offered Dawkins 1000 words.

Robertson then makes a post totalling 1470 words and complains about censorship.

Note to moderators.

Please delete any post by Robertson which is longer than what he offered Dawkins space.

30. Fleabytes

Comment #131667 by stevencarrwork on February 23, 2008 at 1:28 am

Paula is quite right that Christians simply contradict each other.

Here is CS LEWIS
He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself

Here is DAVID ROBERTSON
You want us as the Higher Consciousness, to become like God.

CARR
So one Christian claims even Satan admits God wants us to become like God, and another Christian thinks it horrible that people want to become 'little replicas' of God.

Although Christianity is just made-up, and every Christian makes up his own beliefs, all Christians agree that Dawkins doesn't understand Christianity.

But how could anybody understand such self-contradictory rubbish?

31. Fleabytes

Comment #131656 by stevencarrwork on February 22, 2008 at 11:53 pm

ROBERTSON
"I live in a universe created by a personal God, the God of mercy, logic, justice, goodness, truth, beauty and love â€" the God whose purposes and intentions are good.

CARR
Perhaps David Robertson might one day tell us what evidence there is for any alleged god and how Robertson can claim to know what his purposes are?

Theology is all made up.

You can easily find Christians who claim that God allows evil for 'unknown' purposes while Robertson claims to know God's purposes.


No wonder atheists can't believe Christianity when Christians simply contradict each other, every time they try to explain it.

32. Fleabytes

Comment #131084 by stevencarrwork on February 21, 2008 at 11:16 pm

ROBERTSON
You want to replace God with humanity. You want us as the Higher Consciousness, to become like God. I believe that a long time ago there was someone else who once offered humanity the key to all knowledge. We fell for it then and have ever since been paying the price. I pray that we will not fall for that one again."

CARR
Who else is as nasty as Dawkins?

Well, Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Everest.

Clearly Hillary wanted to replace Spiderman with himself.

And people who make bulldozers and mechanical diggers.

They want to make humanity stronger than Superman!

And Chuck Norris?

He thinks he is more patriotic than Captain America!

Does Robertson think atheists are going to read what he wrote and do anything other than go 'Huh? What?'

Does Robertson even know what an atheist is?

An atheist is somebody who regards stories of talking donkeys in the same way he regards stories of Spiderman.

33. Fleabytes

Comment #131081 by stevencarrwork on February 21, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Clearthinker really does believe in a Satan who tempted Adam and Eve.

Simply because he read it in an old book.

The man is a nutcase.

34. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128059 by stevencarrwork on February 16, 2008 at 2:08 am

As a scientist, Richard Dawkins is pretty hostile to his OWN doctrines...

He actually looks for evidence that what he writes is true.

35. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128057 by stevencarrwork on February 16, 2008 at 2:02 am

Stein can talk about Darwinism and the Holocaust, but Hitler was a creationist.

Hitler explicity rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Hitler also wrote 'Die zehn Gebote sind Ordnungsgesetze, die absolut lobenswert sind.'

36. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126297 by stevencarrwork on February 12, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Any religion which bans pork is going to be a threat to the vey raison d'etre of Denmark...

37. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116651 by stevencarrwork on January 26, 2008 at 11:59 pm

NOLONGERBELIEF
I can't understand the notion of a 'loving' God who would damn me to eternal suffering just because I dared to fantasize about some member of the opposite sex outside of my marriage.

CARR
This illustrates the ignorance atheists have about Christianity.

When Jesus condemned people for looking at a women lustfully, he said nothing about 'outside of a marriage'.

Where did you get that from?

Atheists are so ignorant about the wonderful teachings of the greatest teacher who ever lived, who condemned husbands for looking at their wives with lust in their hearts.

38. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115520 by stevencarrwork on January 24, 2008 at 9:28 am

'Darwin's account may be solid indeed. But value free? Nothing could be further from the truth - and that's where the problem lies.'

I see.

So purely science based accounts of mankind mean that atheists have no basis for moral values.

And these same scientce based accounts are laden with values.

I guess it all depends what stick you want to beat atheists over the head with.

HITLER
From Table Talk for 1942
Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'


I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

39. The New Theology

Comment #113219 by stevencarrwork on January 19, 2008 at 1:22 am

The article is yet more confirmation that theology is making anything up that makes you feel comfortable.

Why is it still a university subject?

40. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103301 by stevencarrwork on December 25, 2007 at 2:51 am

ADH
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

----------------------------------------------

And here is what Craig states on that web site.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

'For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses.....
If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that's His prerogative.

What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.'

Craig worships Satan, but calls him God.

41. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103300 by stevencarrwork on December 25, 2007 at 2:45 am

'Furthermore, atheism is typically
associated with slightly pathological behaviour - one study found that a large
proportion of atheists had absent or weak fathers. If you have no loving father on
Earth, it is hard to believe you have a loving father in heaven.'

Let's face it.

If you have no loving father in earth, and only have a loving father in heaven, you are in deep trouble.

All religions teach that you need 2 parents, which is surprising when they claim that we all have a perfect Father.

But even religious people cannot avoid reality too much. They know that the loving father in heaven will do zilch for the children they love.

Almost as if no loving father in heaven existed.....

42. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98146 by stevencarrwork on December 13, 2007 at 6:21 am

FATHER MIKE
It is like trying to prove the existance, or otherwise of, love for example, it canot be done.

CARR
Do religious people really still use this argument?

Boy... the number of priests who must have thought to themselves 'People might suspect I love 11 year old boys, but they will never be able to prove I love them.'.....

43. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98135 by stevencarrwork on December 13, 2007 at 6:09 am

FATHER MIKE
By the way I dont accept that atheism is a lack of belief, that is a cop out surely.
Atheism is a lack of religous faith. You do have beliefs very strong one. My point is that once you challenge people from within an organised body, you need to accept that you have a corporate identity, you are seen as a group. In this case a group that shares a world view point. ie. the world is best understood through reason and impirical evidence.

CARR
What organised body were Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Richard Dawkins members of?

What beliefs did Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Richard Dawkins have in common? They all believed gravity existed? They all believed the world was round?

Thank goodness Father Mike confirms that Christians don't think reason is the best way to understand the world.

I doubt if Father Mike is an Anglical priest.

I'm certain he is an atheist posting troll arguments to make Christians look stupid.

44. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97549 by stevencarrwork on December 12, 2007 at 10:33 am

FATHER MIKE
I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.

CARR
Alll atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.

Just as the only thing all sober people have in common is a lack of alcohol.

Should sober people apologise for traffic accidents caused by sober people lacking alcohol in the same way that drunk people should apologise for traffic accidents caused by people havin alcohol?

45. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97335 by stevencarrwork on December 11, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Atheism is a lack of belief , just like sobriety is a lack of alcohol.

At least with alcohol, you can get drunk and forget your troubles.

Where is sobriety when bad things happen?

46. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97334 by stevencarrwork on December 11, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Atheism is a lack of belief , just like sobriety is a lack of alcohol.

All sober people have in common is a lack of alcohol.

All atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.

Apologising for the crimes committed by some atheists is like apologising for the traffic accidents caused by people being sober, if drunk people apologise for the traffic accidents caused by people being drunk.

47. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96789 by stevencarrwork on December 10, 2007 at 10:55 pm

The Nazis were trying to create a religion-free society with their slogan 'Kinder, Kirche , Kueche'.

And I see Father Jonathan has quite forgotten about Franco, or the various Croats and Greek leaders during the second world war.

And what was the religion of the commandant of Auschwitz? Rudoelf Hoess was a Catholic.

As for this 'apology' he talks about, said apology talked about errors made by the sons and daughters of the church, not the church itself.

48. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96785 by stevencarrwork on December 10, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Surely the Pope is better placed than Dawkins to know about the evils of Hitler.

After all, he was in Hitler's army - if only temporarily.

49. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96778 by stevencarrwork on December 10, 2007 at 10:33 pm

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the faithful 'receive with docility' the teachings of their elders in their various forms.

Why is Father Jonathan pretending to be open-minded when he is pledged to 'receieve with docility' whatever the Catholic Church decides to tell him?

50. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #94522 by stevencarrwork on December 5, 2007 at 11:00 pm

' Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions. Consider, for example, the sloppiness displayed by all of the authors in discussing their political aims. Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion?'

Does Linker think that Dawkins is American? What political aims does Dawkin have for America, where he can't even vote?

Does Linker think there is anything outside America?

At least, anything actually important outside America.