Comments by Hobbit

51. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122654 by Hobbit on February 5, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Hi All,

It has been quite a will since I posted, although I have been reading the various threads with great interest.

A simple way to check whether or not the CC is discriminating against non believers is to re submit the application exactly as it was, but change:

"to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief."

To: "to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life with the need for superstition or religious belief."

If the application is accepted, then we all throw our arms up and start yelling loudly.

It would be an interesting exercise.

52. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96651 by Hobbit on December 10, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Like religions everywhere, Mao, Stalin and Hitler all committed mass murder to further their own power base. Simple.

Communist China, North Korea, Zimbabwe and other dictatorships around the world continue this practice. It has nothing to do with belief in a magic sky fairy or not, but holding onto power. As was the Spanish inquisition.

As others here have stated, these people need to use a dictionary every now and then. Atheism is not a philosophy, but simply that one does not believe in a god!

Atticus_of_Amber - that was a great response and I suggest you email it to the good kiddie fiddler - err - I mean father and let us know his response.

53. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91216 by Hobbit on November 27, 2007 at 4:23 pm

The truly sad thing about the USA is that you MUST be a person of faith to attain office.

Remind me again how many openly atheist politicians you have in congress (or any major office).

I say go ahead and question all their beliefs. Ask them to prove that their belief is the one true belief and why what others believe is false. After all, this is what all religions claim.

So if they refuse to do this, they are either not true believers of the faith (and therefore lying bastards) and only claiming to be to get into power (which is what all religions are really about anyway), or they are true believers that don't want to openly lie about their true goal of taking their religious views and plans into the highest of office and therefore alienate potential votes that believe in a different brand of bullshit.

Here in Australia, we have just replaced one conservative right wing Christian (Anglican) from the right side of politics with another right wing conservative Christian (Catholic) from the left side of politics. Both claim that their faith will help guide them in leading the country.

Great Sky Smurf help us all!

54. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74225 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 8:17 pm

CHeard,

Firstly let me say that I am impressed by the breadth of the reading material. I agree that it does have a biased towards Christian writers (as you admitted, it is after all a Christian uni).

But as always, there are questions.

Why only exerts from "Origins of Species"?

What is the preface given to the students before they are sent of to read these texts?

What about the rest of my challenge?

Tell them to read these books but give them no preconceived ideas or thoughts on how they should interpret these texts but tell them to read each of them with an open mind. They are to come to their own conclusions.

After they have all read these books (you should do the same), have them write out what they liked and disliked about each text, what they agreed with and disagreed with in each text and why?

After they have done this, have them come to this site and interact with us.

After they have heard all the arguments for and against god, ask them to provide evidence for both his existence and non existence. Then ask them to provide evidence for and against evolution, that the age of the earth is 6010 years and the age of the universe. In order to do this, the will need to engage in independent research.

Only after they have done these things can you claim that you are allowing them to fully examine their faith!

What is the expectation from the students after they have been through the reading material?

What happens if one of them writes an excellent essay entitled "I now believe god and the bible is a load of old bollocks and here's why"?

I will admit that many of your students are better read than me, but I still ponder if I have come out the other side as an atheist because I went in with no preconceived ideas and an open mind? Having said that, I understand that you are attempting to get some of your students to open their minds by even the smallest of margins.

55. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74215 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Revcort:

I certainly encourage and expect that these students MUST eventually come to grips with what they truly believe, but I don't want to throw them the wolves to soon.

Not until the seed of indoctrination has been planted good and deep and has started to take root!

Give me the child for seven years and I will show you the man.

56. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74202 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Revcort,

You say that you encourage your students to examine their faith and not take what you teach them as true until they have checked it out for themselves (by reading the scriptures to confirm that you have not made it up).

I'm sorry but I must agree with Northern Brights et al. Having them re read what you have just told them is not independent research or thought!

Here's a challenge for you. Instruct your students to read at least 2 or 3 of the following books: The God Delusion; God is not Great; Letters to a Christian Nation; anything by Bertrand Russell; On Origin of Species; A Brief History of Nearly Everything, the Koran, the book of Mormon and at least one other holy book from a non Abrahamic faith.

Tell them to read these books but give them no preconceived ideas or thoughts on how they should interpret these texts but tell them to read each of them with an open mind. They are to come to their own conclusions.

After they have all read these books (you should do the same), have them write out what they liked and disliked about each text, what they agreed with and disagreed with in each text and why?

After they have done this, have them come to this site and interact with us.

After they have heard all the arguments for and against god, ask them to provide evidence for both his existence and non existence. Then ask them to provide evidence for and against evolution, that the age of the earth is 6010 years and the age of the universe. In order to do this, the will need to engage in independent research.

Only after they have done these things can you claim that you are allowing them to fully examine their faith!

If you just continue to direct them toward the scripture you are engaging in indoctrination and a form of mental child abuse.

57. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74198 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm

lane:

But for me its a simple matter of Jesus having won over my heart.

But most of what you said I believe to be real and true. I just hope that you will keep in mind that God wants us to represent him with a kind and understanding heart.

How do you know what god wants? Is it at all possible that it your own mind creating this knowledge.

Can you provide any objective evidence of this knowledge of what god wants?

58. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74033 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 5:20 am

Revcort:

Well, I have one further thing to say to all of you. As I was praying this morning, God revealed something to me that is very important.

How did he reveal it to you? This is a serious question. Was it a burning bush, a talking ass or just a feeling you had?

If it was the either of the first two, did you capture it on tape? This could be construed as the proof we have been asking for.

If it was the latter (or a voice in your head), don't you think it maybe your own thoughts and not those of god?

Very interested in your response.

Also, please don't go (unless it is to the Middle East). I mean this in all sincerity. Although many here don't agree with your views (including other Christians), you do bring another dimension to the debate.

59. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74026 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 5:03 am

Billy:

I think Hobbit needs the comfy chair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8

Aaah, another sacred text / video. If you watch again carefully, you will see that the true believer is offered coffee in the comfy chair.

Again proof that coffee is the only true hot beverage!

Disprove that demon tea worshipers?

60. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74011 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 4:39 am

Robert,

Forgive me if I have offended you. That was not my intention. I do not wish to question your sense humour at all.

I have the utmost respect for your views (and those of quetz et al) on this forum.

I was simply trying to demonstrate to Revcort et al (who should be in the Middle East by now) how their fairytale has been split into different factions by humans who have different views of the world and how quickly these things can escalate into serious tickling and attacks by gay fruit flies.

Although I don't understand the tea drinkers I am able to live along side them peacefully and respect their somewhat perverted view of the world (I did after all marry and breed with one).

If only the faithheads could do the same?

61. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74001 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 4:11 am

Robert Maynard, you dare question the validity of the sacred text? Have thee no sense of humour or irony?

Science maybe the poetry of reality, but humour is the spice of life!

Non believers shall be cast into a pit of jelly and forced to wrestle for forgiveness.

Tea drinkers shall tickled mercilessly.

62. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73992 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 3:18 am

The false demon god Quetz:

And bring it on. My legions will crush you.

Coffee worshipers of the world rise up and smite the tea heretics

63. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73986 by Hobbit on September 27, 2007 at 3:03 am

Cheard:

Mine smells better.

By the way, are you sure you're a hobbit, and not a microcephalic homo sapiens? ;-)

According to the sacred text "Lord of the Rings", I must be a Hobbit!

I have large feet (and you know what they say about men with large feet, ...... big shoes) and I very regularly have a 2nd breakfast.

Maybe I should start a rival theology to Quetz, after all coffee is the proper hot beverage, not that awful tea. Yuk! At least I have a sacred text.

64. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73961 by Hobbit on September 26, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Wow, you don't log in for few days and you really miss the fun.

It seems I got my wish of watching Revcort expain to Cheard why his brand of bullshit was more right than the other brand of bullshit!

Great to watch. They should make a reality TV series out of this stuff. Put 15 of the faithful in a house and each week the audience gets to vote 1 off. During the show, each of the faithful is put through a series of tests to prove why their faith is the 1 true faith.

The last 1 left gets to claim to be the 1 true religion until the next series!

On that thought, a comedy group here has done something similar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c64Tx7y6W0Y

Worth a watch just for a laugh.

65. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72575 by Hobbit on September 21, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Revcort wrote:

Well, I understand those passages from Genesis a bit differently.

And this is the crux of the problem. YOU believe that YOUR interpretation of the ancient texts is absolutely right and EVERYONE that disagrees with you is WORSHIPING DEMONS!

Can you see the problem here?

The Pope says that Catholicism is the only true religion. Baptists say their interpretation is the only true form of Christianity. Imams say that Islam is the only true religion. Rabbis say the Judaism is the only true religion. Hindu priests say that their gods are the only true ones.

You all have extremely closed minds.

This is one of the reasons why atheists think religion is a load of bollocks!

66. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72562 by Hobbit on September 21, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Hi all,

Check out this link (I'm sorry but I don't know how to hyperlink in html).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVKMn2nDQM

(if the link doesn't work, type 'YouTube - The Chaser - Should U.S Muslims carry a special ID card' into Google.

Revcort, do you agree with the people on this show?

67. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72402 by Hobbit on September 21, 2007 at 1:52 am

Revcort, it seems I may get my wish (perhaps its god speaking through this website again).

I asume you will not let CHeard go unchallenged?

Here is your opportunity to show us all why your brand of Christianity is right and CHeard's is wrong.

Please enlighten us all!

68. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72356 by Hobbit on September 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm

phasmagigas,

on that note, can you accept (im doing a sam harris now!) that had you been born in Iran you would actually have been a fundamentalist muslim, just what would that mean for your soul being saved??

I have asked him a very similar question. He side stepped it and replied that by the grace of god he was born in the bible belt of the good ol' USA!

If he has to honestly think about the question , the answer might scare him too much. Best to avoid these type of things.

69. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72337 by Hobbit on September 20, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Revcort:

First of all, they are being disobedient to the very words of Christ, who told us to go and make disciples of all nations. They are sitting in their own cells reading and may well become the most holy person on the planet, but what good are they doing the rest of the world? There is value there, to be certain, but I think it must be shared

God is now sending you messages through your own words on this website! Read what you have written.

Christ, who told us to go and make disciples of all nations.

If this isn't a clear message that you should have already sold up & got a ticket to the Middle East, what is?

70. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72323 by Hobbit on September 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Revcort:

Yet, there is hope for all who are reading here because God ordains not only the ends (the salvation of people) but also the means, which in this case COULD BE my being here to tell you the truth. That's the only reason I have continued here. I'm hoping and praying that God may use what I have said, even in the life of someone who is simply lurking but not posting, to awaken them by the truth of His Word

Again we are back to "god sent me here to save you all".

But still you are missing that god sent you here to realise that you need to go to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Nigeria whilst living off a dollar a day. He will protect you like he protected Daniel!

It's exactly the same argument! If god's messages are this vague, no wonder we keep missing them.

Have you told the wife and kids you are off on a little trip (but are unsure when or how it will end)? How will they react when you tell them that god sent you a message via an atheist website?

71. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72315 by Hobbit on September 20, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Revcort,

You keep claiming that "the scripture is clear", but then argue why your interpretation of its meaning is right and others interpretation of its meaning is wrong.

As you need to keep correcting our literal interpretation of its meaning, does this not mean that the scripture is in fact "unclear"?

Surely if it where clear, its meaning would not need interpretation!

72. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72311 by Hobbit on September 20, 2007 at 5:58 pm

The argument that Revcort and others are making regarding the falseness of evolution sounds extremely similar to Galileo's discovery that the universe in fact, did not revolve around the earth, but that the earth revolved around a sun that actually sits somewhere in the outer suburbs of the universe.

If I remember my history correctly, the church at the time was very upset about this discovery(even though it was confirmed by their own astronomers) as it would show that they (the leaders of the church) actually knew didley squat about anything, let alone god.

The same thing is happening now. Religion (esp. Christianity) is very worried about the theory of evolution (and the facts that support it) as it undermines their authority and therefore their power.

Remember that religion is more about power than about god.

Revcort, do you think that the leaders of your church (and you) are worried about evolution because it will show that the bible has been interpreted incorrectly and therefore will undermine the church's authority.

If this happens, people will begin to ask questions such as "well, if they are wrong about that, maybe they are wrong about a lot of the things in the bible". This could be very bad for business.

Don't forget that your very income and social status within your community will be under threat. You will lose the power you now hold over the youth who have been sent to you for indoctrination. If this happens, their parents may stop coming and giving over money each Sunday. As I said, bad for business!

The church eventually had to concede that the earth was not the centre of the universe due to overwhelming scientific evidence.

I am of the firm belief that the church will eventually have no choice but to concede that evolution is a valid theory that has yet to be falsified and that the earth is older than 6010 years. This will happen due to the mountain of evidence stacked up against them.

Revcort, if you get in early on this admission, it may save you from having to take your family to live in poverty in the Middle East!

73. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71846 by Hobbit on September 19, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Revcort,

Please don't get put off by these constant questions and counter evidence to your argument.

I get the feeling from some of your previous posts that you are of the opinion that your brand of faith is the only true one and other versions of it (such as Islam and evangelical Christianity) are false.

What I really want to see is for you to continue coming onto this site and debating your case. Eventually some other faithful people will join in. Then you will be able to go up against wee Flea et al and explain to him why his brand of Christianity is not correct.

Can you do that for me?

Also I enjoy reading all the posts from you and the responses you are getting. I'm learning plenty.

74. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71845 by Hobbit on September 19, 2007 at 6:46 pm

phasmagigas:

i mentioned that fossils are random in my post, that was in relation to say any individual creature and how/when they get exposed. As you say the process insnt random as such but for all intents and purposes for any given individual creature the chances of being fossilised could be considered random. hope that clears up any notion of evolutionists not getting their stories straight.

Well stated. That was exactly what I was trying to put across.

I also agree with the following:

no totally not, there are several people doing that and the great thing is that at least our arguments tend to concur, that HAS to be a good sign, the theistic arguments tend to ,err, vary, quite a bit from theist to theist, im not sure what that means (and its not even us who have been reading the same book!!!!).

The beauty I see in science is that we actually encourage others to disagree with us and prove us wrong with superior evidence.

75. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71825 by Hobbit on September 19, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Hi Revcort, glad you keep coming back.

Although shouldn't you be getting ready for your upcoming trip into poverty in the Middle East to convert the heathens?

These examples that so many of you have given tell me nothing. They are isolated and random. They are not a scientific process that applies to all. These strange examples are just that- strange. There should be millions of examples of these things in the fossil record. They should literally be everywhere- and they should still be occurring right now. They are not everywhere because they don't happen except in freaks of nature- which never survive.

Before you start asking questions as to why fossils aren't being dug up in every backyard, you need to understand the process that forms fossils in the first place (and I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination).

My understanding is that the conditions that need to occur in order for fossils to form are not easy to achieve. This is why we find clusters of fossils in certain areas and no fossils in others.

This can also be used to explain the formation of oil, gas and coal (which are called fossil fuels for a reason). These can not be found by random drilling or digging. Modern science uses very specific techniques and analysis to increase the probability of finding oil, gas and coal at any given site.

This leads me to another question. If the earth is only 6010 years old, how did the oil, gas and coal have time enough to form? And if it can form in that time frame, we shouldn't have to worry about ever running out any time soon as it should be continually being topped up?

Instead of telling us why science is wrong, try asking questions as to why we think science is right and ask for the evidence. Then think about that evidence and try to bring in your own evidence to refute it (sorry, but the scriptures don't count as evidence. It needs to be corroborated by independent research and sources).

After doing this, the next step of admitting that you may actually be wrong is not as difficult. That is one of the reasons I enjoy coming to this site. I never claim to be an expert on any of the subjects here, but I am happy to put my thoughts out there and have others discuss them. I have found that I have learnt so much from others responses and even more by the references they provide.

But I don't stop there and take them at face value. I have found that I have been inspired to do further independent research to further my knowledge and understanding of things.

I not only encourage you to do this, but I encourage you to encourage the youth that you preach to do the same. Those that come back to the faith will truly be saved. Those who don't, never really were.

Or are you frightened of this approach as you may lose future revenue for the business that pays your way and gives you power over others?

76. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71758 by Hobbit on September 19, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Epeeist:

What about the other direction, i.e. a thousand years a day. Given your estimate of 50 year for Jesus to reappear this comes down to just over an hour.

Bugger, I missed him!

I didn't even think of going the other way (hence why math is not my strong subject). Thanks

Galactor, thanks for your input as well. BTW, I don't think you are rude, just honest.

77. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71592 by Hobbit on September 19, 2007 at 4:59 am

Epeeist,

Sorry to be pathetic, but can you please critique my maths on the re appearence of Jesus. It can be found at Comment #71468:

As I mentioned, maths has never been my subject and it would be nice to be corrected by a Physics PhD.

Thanks.

78. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71480 by Hobbit on September 18, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Revcort:

Are you trying to kill me off or do you just want me to shut-up? If you're trying to get me to deny my faith at the mere possibility of putting my own life or the life of my family in danger, you're mistaken about me. It would not be my personal preference, but I would go if I needed to. But it was still funny.

I am not trying to kill you, shut you up or get you to deny your faith. It is not up to me to do any of those things.

I am simply pointing out your own arguments and asking you to follow them. You claim that you will do what ever god wants you to do but you say he doesn't actually speak to you. So how do you know what he wants you to do.

If you think hard about this, it means that all the things you do and think are yours and yours alone.

You claim that you believe you came to this sight to show us the truth and that god was seeking us out. All I did was put this back on you and show you that you he may have sent you here to receive a message from him (such as preaching in devout Muslim countries that you have stated follow a demon god) and seek you to do his will. You dismissed this as a joke. I don't think god will be laughing if you deliberately ignore him!

If you think that that god is sending you vague messages, but you dismiss suggestions that you don't like, isn't it possible that:

A) No messages are actually being sent
B) Those that you choose to follow are actually ones you thought of yourself
C) You are deliberately ignoring god's directive and he will be very angry and bring his wrath down upon you.

Homosexuality is obviously sinful- it is a crime against nature itself, wouldn't you agree? Do you know of any homosexual animals? (that are not trained that way by some wacko) Even nature tells us that if a man and a man mate, there is no reproduction. Therefore, there is no perpetuation of humanity. (I can prove that without God's Word- you should be impressed)

Bonobo's (one of our closest animal relatives) engage in homosexual sex constantly. I have seen many a sheep, goat, cow , dog etc engage in homosexual sex (not just male to male).

I ask, how many people have had a dog hump their leg.

The only thing you have impressed on me is how closed your mind is to facts. Try reading TGD. But don't stop there. Read Hitchen's and Harris as well. Bertrand Russell is very good to. And before you ask, yes, I have read the Bible and some of the Koran. Both are poor examples of literature and are extremely disturbing. There is no way I would want to share some of that stuff with a child. Talk about nightmare inducing!

79. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71468 by Hobbit on September 18, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Revcort:

But Peter says that "with the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years a day." (2 Peter 3:8) So, in God's estimation of time, it's been only about 2 days.

So let's do a little calculation here. The average life expectancy 2000 years ago was approx. 30 - 35 years (some one fell free to correct me on that as I'm working from a poor memory). So let's assume 35 years.

OK. Jesus said he would return before this generation ends. Let's give him a little bit of extra time, say 50 years.

OK, so 1 day to god = 1000 years.

So, 50 x 365 = 18250 days

18250 x 1000 = 18,250,000 years.

So Jesus will be back in approx. 18,250,000 years.

Now let's remember what has happened on earth (from an evolutionary point of view) over the last 18,250,000 years.

Math's was never my subject. epeeist you're the Physics PhD, mark my effort here please?

80. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71459 by Hobbit on September 18, 2007 at 8:17 pm

Revcort,

Firstly, I am an Australian, not a "brit" (they get terribly upset when you confuse us with them; it makes them feel as if they are good at cricket).

Secondly, you claim:

God must be the seeker. (and I would say that he is seeking you now- and using me to send that message)

Since god is using this website to seek people, I put it to you that you should go and preach your religious beliefs in any of the following countries (after giving up all your worldly possessions, which will help with the weight problem); Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Nigeria, Palestine or all of the above. Since you said:

Perhaps one day God will call me there. If so, I will go. I do not seek death, but if that's what is to be, then I pray I would never deny my Lord. Daniel is truly a great example of this. I pray that I would have that same faith.

So there you go. Time to sell everything, pack the bags, gather up the wife and kids and go. Since god has sent you to me through this website, he must therefore have sent me to seek you into service to convert heathens in far away lands. Time to give up more than the pizza.

Please send us regular reports of all the people you save in these nations. Remember, you must do all of this on less than $1 a day.

You must do as I say because god is seeking you through me via this website.

I'm afraid you have argued yourself into a trip to the Middle East and Africa.

81. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71394 by Hobbit on September 18, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Why do all the faith heads bugger off when the questions get hard. Revcort answered only 1 of my questions and then ignored all the rest.

Oh that's right. Just like the Bible, we can ignore the bits we don't like or don't apply to how we want to live our life and just refer to those we do like.

Let me ask you a really difficult question Revcort (assuming you are brave enough to come back).

Should we take the Matthews account of what Jesus said literally? I am assuming you will answer yes to this on the grounds of lots of eyewitness accounts.

Ok, so the words written in the scripture are the actual words of Jesus? Yes!

Then let me ask you if you would consider yourself rich? As a comparison, let's take a starving family in any poor nation you care to name. Many of these people have to exist on less than $1 per day.

Let's assume you make more than this. I can assume this as you seem to have access to expensive computer equipment.

So by all the evidence you are a rich man? Yes!

Therefore, you will not be entering the gates of heaven! Sorry, but according to Matthew the word of Jesus (and therefore the word of God) was and is:

19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Sorry Revcort, but it seems all your efforts have been in vain. Unless you give up all your worldly possession and live off less than a dollar a day, you ain't getting in. After all, the meek shall inherit the earth.

Let me ask you another tricky question. Why don't you head over to Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia to preach your religion there instead of in the middle of the US bible belt (which, let's face it, is like shooting fish in a barrel). Surely god will protect you when you go into that lions den? He did it for Daniel, why not a true believer like yourself?

6:16 Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.

6:20 And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?
6:21 Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever.
6:22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.
6:23 Then was the king exceedingly glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.

Go on, put your money (and your life and that of your wife and children) where your god is? If he is really there and you really are a true believer, you have nothing to fear. After all, it is written in the scriptures and is the TRUTH! Or is this just another analogy?

82. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71135 by Hobbit on September 17, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Revcort,

As any half decent lawyer will tell you, eyewitness testimony is the worst sort of evidence.

83. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71131 by Hobbit on September 17, 2007 at 10:10 pm

revcort:

Another simple proof can be seen on the origins of these religions. Islam began in the 6th century AD- Judaism, which is the root of Christianity began "in the beginning" about 4000 BC. What happened to all those born prior to 570 A.D.? Allah apparently didn't care to reveal himself until billions had died without hope.

What about all those born prior to 4000 B.C.? Presumibly they where worshiping another deity. God / Jesus apparently didn't care to reveal themselves until billions died without hope.

As for holes. Plenty! If I ask a Muslim, they will tell me that God spoke through Muhamod and therefore, since his word came after that of Jesus, he must be write.

Where is your proof that the Bible was wriiten by 40 different authors over 1500 years (do you still have the original drafts)? As many people on this thread have pointed out, the Bible has been edited many times through out history as well as commitees deciding which scriptures to put in and leave out.

And it contradicts itself all over the place. (eye for an eye, turn the other cheek as 1 such example).

As you where asked by another contributor (and I beleive still have not answered) which bits of the bible should we take literaly and which bits can we ignore?

OK, you had a stab at Islam (although rather poorly). How about the teachings of Buddah, the texts of Hindu, the Ancient Roman and Greek gods, Dream Time, Tikki's, Egypian gods etc. The list goes on and on.

You still haven't explained why the vast majority of the worlds 6 billion strong population have got it so wrong and you (and I assume a very small percentage of those 6 billion) have got it so right!

Why won't your sky fairy reveal himself / herself to the vast majority of the people on earth? What has he / she got against all these people? Is he / she racist? If the Bible is the word of this deity, they are certainly sexist, so racism is probably the answer. In fact I beleive there are passages in the Bible about how god punish someone and turn their skin black? Please remind me of the correct passage?

If your deity is all powerful why would he / she allow people to be born in places where they don't worship him / her? Why doesn't he just make them all sterile?

As for your question:

However, it is not that difficult to explain why the god of muslims (a demon) is not truly god. The first is to simply look at the claims of both. #1 Jesus claimed to be God. Now, He is either God or He is a liar or should have been locked up because He was crazy. Which is it?

What does Islam say? Islam calls Jesus a prophet., just like Muhammad. This is an impossible middle ground stance to take. It is a logical fallacy. he can't simply be a prophet who claimed to be God and He can't simply be a good man.

How do you know that both of them weren't just making it up?

84. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71116 by Hobbit on September 17, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Revcort writes:

The knowledge I claim is based on a book that God has given the amoebas down here. It's called the Bible.

But I thought the book god gave us was the Koran?

Isn't that god's book?

Why is your particular brand of faith right and the majority of the 6 billion people on this planet wrong? Do you think it might be where you were born and what religion your parents were.

Ask yourself honestly, if you were born and raised in Iran by Islamic parents, would you still believe that the Bible (and not the Koran) is the true word of god?

All we ask for is proof that we can test.

85. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66669 by Hobbit on August 30, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Congrats Veronique. Another Aussie joins the clan. I'm sure all of Mullimbimby is celebrating with you.

For all you folk from the U.S, I will translate the following sentence from Veronique:

I am somewhat pissed so I won't say much

In Australia if someone is pissed, this means they have consumed a large amount of alcohol.

In the Australian language, the word piss has many different meanings depending on the context in which it is used.

As for the article above, I felt it was very well written and heart felt. I feel sorry for mother Theresa's situation. It is sad that her indoctrination into the medieval belief was so complete that she could not break free even when she discovered the truth.

As for the side tracked debate into abortion, I really don't care about CH's (or any one else's) position. As long as they don't legislate it to make it my position.

I personally am pro choice. It's a woman's body and therefore her choice as to what to do with it and not a group of religious leaders and politicians.

86. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65793 by Hobbit on August 26, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Here is my feeble effort. I also attached a copy of my avatar, "Science vs. Creationism".

No, I am not among the millions who believe in an invisible being without a shred of credible, verifiable, independent or reproducible evidence. I believe in science,

Religion is nothing more than a tool to keep the masses in line. It is used by leaders to maintain and further their own powerbase. How many religions have rules against questioning their doctrines? Is this why we have so many different types of similar religion? For example, Henry VIII power was threatened by the Catholic Pope of the day, so he formed his own version of Christianity (the Church of England).

Religion is under attack but it is fighting back. And it fights dirty. Religious leaders will distort facts or simply make up new ones to defend their powerbase. Anyone who questions them is branded evil. They deal in hatred, bigotry and fear. They want to deny the children of their followers a proper education (an educated follower may develop an independent thought).

The lines between religion and politics have not only blurred, in many countries (the U.S.A. included) they have merged. This is a sad state of affairs for humanity. Centauries after the age of enlightenment, religion is attempting to drag us back into medieval practices.

Religion should not only be kept out of politics, it should not even be discussed publicly. Religion should be like sex, an activity for consenting adults in private.

I have no problem with people who want to believe in a magic sky fairy and spend their lives following the rules a magic book. However, when they start telling me how I have to live my life, then I not only have problem, I will fight back.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

87. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65562 by Hobbit on August 24, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Neither does the emotional tension that tends to follow one-night stands.

The voice of experience!

Maybe it's best if BD stays a virgin. At least he will be out of the gene pool!

88. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63766 by Hobbit on August 15, 2007 at 6:41 pm

darwin2 wrote

Now tell me how Zeus, the Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Bael, and Odin differ from the God I describe. Also tell me what purpose they have with us humans. Are they good and evil gods? Then tell me if these gods sound more reasonable then my God and why they do.

Actually they don't differ from your magic being at all! They are all the same thing!

They were all made up by people to explain things they couldn't understand. None of them exist except in fiction where they all belong.

Now why don't you have a nice cup of your "special" tea and then have a good lie down. All this science, logic and reason stuff must be hurting your brain!

89. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63748 by Hobbit on August 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm

darwin2 wrote:

I have never seen God nor do I have any hope of ever seeing God. God is infinite and I am finite. A finite being can never experience, meet or comprehend that which is infinite. But I do feel God's presence and I do know He has a divine plan for all of us. I developed my conclusions about God's existence and my purpose in life by using critical thinking skills in asking myself the deep questions about life and finding the answers that satisfy me.

How do you feel His presence? Does He poke you in the back, tap you on the shoulder or make you feel special in your private place? How do you even know it's a He?

Do you need to take your "special medicine" to feel His presence? Or do you only feel his presence when you don't take the "special medicine"?

What is this divine plan? Why doesn't this infinite, all seeing, all knowing thing just come out and tell everyone?

I'm sorry but I don't think you did any critical thinking at all. You're afraid if you die, that's it! So you made a little security blanket for yourself in the form of your own special magical friend.

Have followers of other gods got it wrong? What's this infinite being going to do with all us non believers' when we snuff it?

90. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63503 by Hobbit on August 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm

darwin2, in your original post on this thread you wrote:

Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

You ask us to get scientific and yet when we ask you to get scientific (with questions such as infinite regression, proof of the sky fairy) you choose to ignore the scientific method and go straight back to faith head 101, i.e. goddidit!

Look, give us a sound scientific, argument that proves / disproves the existence of the sky fairy, or piss off.

You want to debate science whilst at the same time ignore science.

Tell me, what brand of religion do you follow? Does your god have a name? Do you follow his / her / its teachings from a book? Does he / her / it speak to you directly? Without any of these how do you know he / she / it is there?

91. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63005 by Hobbit on August 12, 2007 at 8:43 pm

I'm not sure who is the bigger TWIT, her or him for being married to her?

At least he could see the logical argument being presented. She just wanted to argue "Well my next door neighbors Aunty Muriel had a psychic find water in her loo once, so it must be true".

But then again, she has the sky fairy symbol around her neck so logic is not one of her strong points!

92. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62002 by Hobbit on August 7, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Thank the sky fairy someone is finally standing up to these frauds! I think they should all be charged with fraud and false advertising!

I work in the medical industry (not pharmaceuticals). You should see the research and testing we have to go through just to our products through the government regulatory bodies. (I'm talking years and millions of $).

Then once we finally get approval, we need class 1 data to convince the medical communities to have a look at it. We need to prove that a new product is at least as good as a current therapy option before we get a look in.

I (and most of the industry) have no issue with this. It leads to better products, better treatments and ultimately to better outcomes for patients (our end user).

If only the alternative therapies were put through the same vigorous process. Imagine how much extra money would flow into proper medical research!

In Australia, medical companies are not allowed to advertise prescription medications or therapies. The 'Natural Herbal' (we have no evidence and can make what ever claim we want) alternative therapies ARE allowed to advertise, thus sucking in more of the gullible.

It just shits me to tears!

93. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61110 by Hobbit on August 3, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Fleas wrote:

We do…which immediately disproves your last point.

I don't think it does. I asked how many. You gave me a sample size of 1. I applaud you for encouraging your followers to read these texts.

Do you then get them to give their honest views or do you tell them why you think the text is wrong and ask them to agree or disagree? This is a not an attack on you but a genuine question that goes to understanding you and your church better. Like you have said, if I don't have an understanding of you and your church, how can I argue against it.

What would you do if one of your followers came to you and told you that these books have really opened their eyes? They are now starting to really question their belief in god. They feel they have wasted a large amount of their lives following this superstition. How would you react? Would you tell them to go and do further research on the subject on their own and then come to their own conclusions? Or would you start advising them about the severe ramifications of giving up their faith (such as going to hell)? Direct them back to the bible, if so which bits, the old or new testament? Do they take the bible as a whole literally, as it is the word of god, or do they only need to listen to certain passages as metaphors? Would you advise them to investigate other religions (such as Islam) to see if they can find the answers there?

Please don't dismiss these questions with your usual insults about my intelligence (as you have done on other threads). I am genuinely interested in how you would approach these questions (and I suspect others here are as well). You claim you want an honest discussion, but mostly, all I have received so far is short sarcastic responses followed by a thinly veiled insult. If you feel I have done the same to you I apologise and will try and restrain myself in future.

Please give a detailed response to my above questions.

94. The Out Campaign

Comment #60682 by Hobbit on August 2, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Flea wrote:

I will partially agree with you. A great deal of religious doctrine is about power – but not all. Love your enemy and do good to those who hate is not about power.

And I have no fear of atheism. I feel sorry for atheists because you are missing out on the best part of being human!

And I find it hilarious that you think I am in a position of power! What power would that be? Please let me know. Now if I was an Oxford Professor with ready access to the media, my own website and fanbase and a million seller book, that would be power. But I guess that kind of power is ok?

No, ALL religious doctrine IS about power (not powerful). It is about controlling those around you. Using your doctrine to get your followers to stay within your particular brand of faith and putting fear in them about leaving or thinking for themselves.

What is the best part of being a human being that atheist are missing out on? Being able to think for themselves? Not have others tell them who they can associate with, what they can and can't eat, what they can do in their bedrooms with whom and how? Freedom of ideas and not being labelled as evil for having them?

I find it hilarious that you think you aren't in a position power. Aren't you of to Bulgaria to talk to young people about the sky fairy? Is this not an attempt to get more followers of your particular brand of fiction and thus increase your churches power base? I assume you are not going to talk to them about Islam or Buddha and how they should be thinking about following those faiths. I assume you will not be telling that homosexuality is evil? I assume that you will be telling them that the only way they can save their mortal soul is to give their lives over to Jesus and do what the church tells them.

Sorry explain again how you don't have power or are trying to broaden the power base of your church?

Of course RD has power and he uses that power to promote free thinking and express his opinion that religion is bad for humanity. He has also stated (Root of all evil) that as a scientist, if new compelling evidence is presented that he has been wrong, he will change his view. Are you prepared to make that statement about your belief in an invisible being that created the universe in 6 days (although the evidence shows this to be false)?

I would argue that as a minister of religion, you are in a position of enormous power. In fact, I would argue that your entire existence (your job, your social standing etc.) is totally dependant on your belief in the invisible sky fairy and his magical book. This is why atheism frightens you.

The more people that start thinking for themselves and question the ridiculous contradictions that faith offers, the less influence you will have and the more irrelevant your job will become. This is why you and other leaders of faith have come out so strongly against the 'New Atheist' movement.

95. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60348 by Hobbit on August 1, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Flea wrote:

Almost everyone who comments on this website will manage to disparage all of the flea books without having read a single one of them.

Yet despite all this there will be a bout of self-congratulation, mockery and self-righteousness. You will all go away feeling justified and immensely thankful that you are part of the new enlightenment and that you have nothing to do with fleas.

Such is the rationality and open-mindedness of the New Atheism.

To a certain extent I think you are correct with your first sentence in the above quote. I would counter with how many people of faith have cried out and complained about the 'New Atheism' (or evolution and other fields of science that they feel threaten the faith) without having read or researched their topic?

How many of them will read these style of books and walk away 'feeling justified and immensely thankful that you are part of the faithful'.

The thing I like about this sight is that it not only puts its own point of view, but attempts to give the opposing point of view a chance as well. The participants are then encouraged to discuss both.

Let me ask you this. How many churches, mosques and temples encourage their followers to go and read the writings of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens et al? Do they then sit around and discuss these texts in an open and honest forum?

'Such is the rationality and open-mindedness of the faithful'.

As I wrote to you on another thread, the leaders of the faithful (like anyone in a position of power, yourself included) go out of their way to stop their followers from being exposed to opposing points view. It's bad for business.

96. The Out Campaign

Comment #60039 by Hobbit on July 31, 2007 at 3:32 pm

The Wee Flea wrote:

5) This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate. Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant.

Welcome back Flea. Not only have I missed your special brand of reasoning, but you have pulled back some other posters that I haven't seen for a while (where have you been epeeist).

As for the statement above, atheist will use political power to discriminate. Hmmmm! I think the key word you have used there is POWER. Religious doctrine, of any brand, is not about god or the magic book etc. it is about power and control.

Lets see if we can think of any countries that have a religious doctrine as their base that are tolerant and don't discriminate? Iran (no), Saudi Arabia (no), Pakistan (no). Can anyone think of one? Don't try and argue the US as it has a separation of church and state as well as freedom of religion and speech at its' core.

It is not atheism that is intolerant, it is power. Religion is just one of the tools used to control and maintain that power.

I am assuming (correct me if I am mistaken) that you are referring to Stalin and Mao et al when you talk about atheism coming to power. However if you look closely at the history, you will find that they used very similar tools as religion to maintain their power. An all knowing leader, dissent or differing opinions were considered treason, control of information to the masses etc.

I agree with Billy Sands and others that you have a fear about atheism. That fear is that the more people that move away from faith, the weaker your power base will become. You are no different from any other person in a position of power. You will do and say what ever it takes to maintain that power, including lies, misinformation and labeling of your opponents as evil and a threat to your followers and their society. This to me sounds like a very similar strategy used by Stain, Mao et al don't you think!

There are many other holes in your arguments but others here have already dealt with them.

I look forward to your continued rants.

97. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59910 by Hobbit on July 31, 2007 at 4:28 am

Northern Bright:

Tumara Baap - Post 216 - Thank you for the suggestion about the book: I'm flattered. If I ever write it I shall immediately commission Hobbit as my editor :-)

NB, I accept (my fees are very reasonable).

Fides is doing the usual trick of arguing semantics, ignoring difficult questions (such as whether or not we should treat his son as an adult in a court of law when he assaults another kid) and ignores all reason.

If you ask the same question 10 times, get the same answer 10 times, why do you think the answer will be any different when you ask it the 11th time?

I think we agree though, RD was wrong to say wicked wasn't he?

Answer for the 11th time ....... NO!

98. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59278 by Hobbit on July 28, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Fides wrote:

To Northern Bright, your experience of meditative prayer is not one I identify with. I suspect from what you wrote that your faith journey didn't bring you to someone called 'John Main', that's a shame. Meditative prayer is about letting go of what you think you know and developing an awareness of the present. Perhaps you were indulging in daily concentration rather than meditation.

Another typical response from a faith head when confronted with a very insightful reason why another person has given up faith - "That's not the right way to pray. No wonder you have lost your faith. Obviously you didn't have enough faith / the right type of faith / had the wrong type of leaders of faith etc.."

Fides go back and read what Northern Bright wrote! If you just open your mind slightly for a moment and absorb what she was saying you may see that her point is a very powerful one. Without trying to speak for NB, I believe she was trying to say this: YOU have created YOUR god in YOUR own image to satisfy YOUR need to justify YOUR god's existence in YOUR own mind!

Once again we shall revisit your question on labeling a child be wicked. Others here have given you some wonderful analogies and I will try one more.

Little Johnny (aged 4) BELIEVES that people of colour are inferior to white people. No one told him this. He came to this conclusion all by himself because his parents and all their friends (all of whom have shaved heads, wear football shirts all the time, have swastikas tattooed on their arms and not only threaten violence against non whites, but often practise it as well) are constantly talking about it. His parents and all their friends call / label themselves 'White Supremacist'. Is it wicked to also label Johnny a 'White Supremacist '. I would argue yes as Little Johnny does not have the reasoning ability at the age of 4 to make such judgments by himself.

It is the same reason that the law treats minors different to adults. It is deemed that children can not make the same reasoned decisions as adults. Would it be 'Wicked' to judge a 4 year old as an adult in a court of law?

If you're 4 year old hits (assault under the law)another child in a playground, should we call the police, handcuff him, fingerprint him, charge him and bring him up before the courts? Perhaps we should give him a custodial sentence if he is a repeat offender. According to you he can make adult decisions using adult reasoning (praying by himself to a god he 'knows' is there without you telling him), so why shouldn't we treat him as an adult in the eyes of the law?

It seems clear that you have been and continue to be brainwashed / indoctrinated into your beliefs and no amount of logical reasoned arguments are going to help you open your mind to other possibilities. The sad thing is you wish to perpetuate this cycle of delusion with your child and not allow him to discover facts and come to his own conclusions.

Just like a smoker who claims he wants to quite, you will not escape this delusion until you are ready to do it. Until then you are wasting your time as you will continue with your harmful addiction and even sadder still is you will inflict your children with the same addiction. Sorry to be so brutal but sometimes it is the only way to get an addict to listen.

99. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59168 by Hobbit on July 27, 2007 at 6:58 pm

I just want to add my praise also to Northern Brights. That was one of the best explanations of "knowing of the sky fairies existence" I have ever read.

Also thanks to everyone that has responded to my question on faith based schools. It was very helpful and has given us plenty to think about.

100. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58995 by Hobbit on July 26, 2007 at 10:14 pm