Comments by Mr DArcy

Comment #84788 by Mr DArcy on November 3, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Grayling makes some useful points. Quite apart from all the Catholic gobbledygook, he shows part of the reality of life in Spain at the time of the civil war and now.

Jesus is never so gentle as when He is turning the other cheek, loving His enemy and turning the flame thrower on the heretics. No wonder there was/is so much anti-cleriscism in Spain, France and elsewhere.

The Catholic church would have you on your knees for all of your life, producing surplus value for it, if it could have its way entirely. Like other businesses, they have to compete in the modern world.

52. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84255 by Mr DArcy on November 1, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Was it Woody Allen who said something like, "I'm the living proof of immortality"?

53. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #84252 by Mr DArcy on November 1, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I have contributed on some of the other D'Souza/ Hitchens debate sites here, but as far as I know not on this one. If I repeat I apologise.

Recently announced in the British media are three new planets discovered by scientists. Did the priests know about them? Surprisingly NO!

D'Souza may be a showman with the gift of the gab, but in the substance of what he's saying is very little. To summarise, D'Souza believes:

1)Science is based on faith.
2)Christianity is the most beneficial contribution to humanity.
3)Miracles are possible.

Cheer up! This man can certainly be beaten in argument. Incidentally, I thought Hitchens got the better of him!

54. The truth in religion

Comment #84245 by Mr DArcy on November 1, 2007 at 2:01 pm

So many previous posters have expressed what I was thinking as I read the article, (for which he presumably got paid plenty), that I don't know where to begin with this article full of its theological doublespeak. So let's have a go at this:

Religious faith is not a matter of the unquestioning acceptance of unmotivated belief, demanded of us by some overriding authority.

IMHO what else is faith if it is exactly what the good rev. says it is not. Faith is exactly a leap into the dark and knowing (or hoping) that you will land safely. Faith is based on the unknown, but, in the case of religion, also a good feeling about the outcome. In the immortal words of Dirty Harry; "Are you feeling lucky?" There were also some other words to the effect of "this is a Magnum 45, and could blow your head clean off". What the hell, if you have faith, go for it!

For the rest of us, be very wary!

55. Face to faith

Comment #83115 by Mr DArcy on October 29, 2007 at 2:00 am

I don't know about anyone else, but knowing that lightening is an electrical discharge in the atmosphere, doesn't stop it from scaring the sh*t out of me! I am truly reverent of lightening!

56. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #83020 by Mr DArcy on October 28, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Yes, there is indeed a lot of ignorance to dispel in this world. But better to do that than give up the ghost!

57. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82667 by Mr DArcy on October 27, 2007 at 7:11 am

D'Souza certainly made the most noise in this debate, but in my book he was not the winner. His theatrical utterances may have convinced a few people but anyone who actually thought about what he said, would be correct in saying that his contribution contained little of any substance.

After all the man has equated science with faith. He has argued that all good things in society came from Christianity, and he believes in miracles. Perhaps whoever takes on D'Souza next would like to consider these particular ridiculous views, in their preparation. The man is a showman, and has nothing positive to say about the human situation.

Like Hitchens, I was sickened by his fawning weasel words about Mother Teresa. Yuk. The man and his ideas are an easy target.

58. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #82529 by Mr DArcy on October 26, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Okay, so Jacobson has now realised that he made mistakes in a paper written in 1955, and is man enough to admit it. The creationists can hardly be blamed for citing his paper if it backed up their particular point of view.

What is quite apparent is that religions of all kinds are quite happy to cite "evidence" when it coincides with their viewpoint and to totally ignore it when it doesn't.

The Christian creationists are particularly prone to this modus operandus.

59. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82451 by Mr DArcy on October 26, 2007 at 11:05 am

I'm going to pick up on something that I don't think anyone else has which is that D'Souza said something very like "miracles might just be possible". He was arguing that scientists take a leap of faith by assuming the laws of nature apply equally everywhere, and that as you can't prove it, there may be exceptions and possibly miracles.

I like it. Here we have a "modern" Christian who is actually prepared to sanction the miraculous. This surely is dry powder in our arsenal. Most "modern" Christians are just so slippery about what they believe in, that they are impossible to pin down, or even understand what they are saying. But here we have a prominent Christian who is prepared to defend miracles. This is perhaps an avenue of ridicule, that could be exposed, unless of course miracles are possible!

60. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #81262 by Mr DArcy on October 24, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Whilst awaiting brother john's proof of the existence of God, I must compliment him on his more frank style. brother john obviously knows more about A.C. Grayling than he is letting on, at least for the moment.

To say that that Dannatt's views are much on a par with Bin Laden's would be repeating what others have said. "Don't worry boys, even if you are blown to bits by a landmine, you will continue to live forever, (somewhere else that no-one knows about)", seems to me to be Dannatt's message. Okay so 72 virgins are not the incentive, but instead, the british soldiers can be happy in knowing that "right" is on their side. Talk about cannon fodder, that's one thing the religios are good at.

61. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81250 by Mr DArcy on October 24, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Having watched the debate, it is now obvious that far from losing, Hitchens did really well, and the audience responded well. A clue to points well made, even if the audience was predominantly Christian.

Unlike other posters, I did not find D'Souza particularly obnoxious, nor was he particularly convincing.

In the battle of ideas, which may take a long time, Hitchens is doing his bit in helping to dispel superstitious ideas.

62. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #80874 by Mr DArcy on October 23, 2007 at 9:34 am

Oh for a world without soldiers, priests, and politicians.

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

Comment #80376 by Mr DArcy on October 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Although this particular thread seems to have run out of steam, I hope that revcort, brother john, and any other believer ( including The Wee Flea), will feel comfortable enough to join us again.

I for one, would like to know if revcort found anything at the creation museum that confirmed him in his young Earth beliefs or indeed raised some questions. Also how's the dating of rocks research going? I suspect stoney silence and only scripture, but I'm always prepared to be proved wrong.

64. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79485 by Mr DArcy on October 17, 2007 at 11:59 am

Having thought about the Archbishop's speech, I would say it's a powerful argument for the Dawkins' thesis that theology is a non-subject and has no place in a university. Sorry, Rowan, I was hoping for better.

Now why am I not surprised by that? It's nice to know that we hip shooting atheists may have hit the target a few times without seeing it.

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

Comment #79183 by Mr DArcy on October 16, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Yes but which one? John FromAmerica or Jesus?

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

Comment #79172 by Mr DArcy on October 16, 2007 at 11:37 am

Has revcort got to chapter 5 of TGD yet? Among other things it describes the birth of a new "messiah", John Frum, who currently resides under a mountain, but who will make a re-appearance together with much cargo. The adherents of this religion have only been waiting some 70 years for the great day, as opposed to the Christians who have been hanging around for some 2000 years.

If revcort does not want to buy TGD then he can just google "john frum", for quite a number of interesting articles that throw a lot of light on the basis and rise of Christianity and other religions. Happy reading fellow humans!

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

Comment #79152 by Mr DArcy on October 16, 2007 at 10:16 am

At least revcort is upfront with his beliefs. We know where he stands, unlike the waffling of the Archbishop of Canterbury:

I describe the God who demands that all men everywhere repent and believe. This is who God is. I could try to change Him to make Him more palatable, but that is not why I'm here.

IMHO revcort you're wrong about the hate bit. I neither hate God nor believers. What I hate is the blinkered view of the world that tolerates no opposition. You guys won't even consider that your God ain't there. revcort says men should repent and believe, but come on revcort, you can't make yourself believe something can you?

With revcort's God it wouldn't make any difference anyway, because it's all been decided beforehand.

68. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78935 by Mr DArcy on October 15, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Since the Archbishop is a distinguished academic, I should think a few sentences here and there would not do justice. You need the complete text before you give an opinion.

Williams may be a distinguished academic, but this is not a messageboard merely for academics. If he said, as reported, that Dawkins' book TGD, was attacking a religion that he didn't recognise as his own, then he is saying that Dawkins is attacking a strawman. You don't have to have a degree in anything to understand that comment. No doubt Williams himself will be well aware of the press coverage, and can send any needed correction to the source.

We don't all have to read through "Mein Kampf", to get the general drift of Hitler's ideas.

What annoys me most about these "modern" theologians like Williams, McGrath and their ilk, is the slimey side-steps performed to wriggle out of any difficulties regarding their God or their religion. Does Williams believe in Christianity as millions in the world know it or doesn't he? If he doesn't, because apparently Dawkins is attacking something else, then what does he believe in? It wouldn't surprise me at all if Williams doesn't actually believe all that resurrection, crucifiction stuff. He may well regard his highly paid job, with nice palaces thrown in too, as a highly educated social worker to pour balms on the troubled brows of the British believers.

69. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78720 by Mr DArcy on October 14, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Stalin, trained as a priest and ruled Russian capitalism for 30 years. Compare the description of him in Pravda:

O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples;
Thou who broughtest Men to birth;
Thou who fructifiest the earth;
Thou who restorest the centuries;
Thou who makest bloom the spring;
Thou who makest vibrate the musical cords;
Thou splendour of my spring, O thou sun reflected by millions of hearts.

Stalin, Czar of all the Russias, p 190

with the Christian hymn "Praise my Soul":

Angels, help us to adore him;
Ye behold him face to face;
Son and Moon bow down before him;
Dwellers all in time and space;
Praise him! Praise him! Praise with us the God of Grace.

It's no wonder we don't understand the God that Rowan Williams believes in, because these gods just keep popping out from the most unlikely places.

70. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78717 by Mr DArcy on October 14, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Williams "inner" thoughts?

"Who will rid me of this troublesome atheist"

71. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78716 by Mr DArcy on October 14, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Apparently the Archbishop of Cant said:

For believers, he said, God is real and existed before the universe did.

Yes, we non believers are aware of that, the point is can the Primate (yes his position is so called), give any evidence or reasoned argument for such a wide ranging claim? "No" presumably would be regarded as a "militant" answer, so instead I suggest: "We unenlightened, patiently await the Archbishop's supportive statements regarding the existence of God before the universe".

If words could build universes, then there would be a hard fought battle between theologians, philosophers and perhaps management consultants.

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

Comment #78551 by Mr DArcy on October 13, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I suspect that we shall all become fossilised before revcort can counter the science used to date the Earth and the universe.

Still, better to be a fossil than fry in hell.

73. Patience, fairness and the human condition

Comment #78549 by Mr DArcy on October 13, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Mr DArcy

Won't you include the human brain as an innate physical advantage over our animal cousins?

Of course the human brain is decisive. It is the most amazing known product of evolution. It is because our brains enabled us to act together instead of as isolated individuals, that we have been able to rise to the position of top predator.

I advisedly leave out uni-cellular organisms, which compose some 70%? of us, and about which almost nothing is known. These surely always were and always will be the top predators.

74. Patience, fairness and the human condition

Comment #78382 by Mr DArcy on October 12, 2007 at 3:45 pm

As a layman, I don't understand all the science, but from a (pre) historical point of view, it appears obvious that humans succeeded as animals because of their social strengths and not because of any innate physical power, poison, armour, camouflage, speed etc. Individually we are puny, but together with mutual co-operation, we can beat off and conquer any attack by lions or whatever. Whether that remains true for micro organisms that regard us as food remains to be seen.

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

Comment #78338 by Mr DArcy on October 12, 2007 at 12:58 pm

This thread started in Shakespearean mode, so here's some more:

"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so."

I might as well quote Shakespeare as the Bible, it means far more to me, and as God has already decided that I'm for the hot dark place, I might as well enjoy what existence I have here on Earth.

Which reminds me. I hope revcort has not been spending his Sunday afternoons watching (American) football, instead of continuing his research into the dating methods used by scientists to evaluate the age of the Earth.

Incidentally revcort, if God is omniscient, he already knows next week's results. Perhaps, in an effort to convert us, you could seek His guidance, have a word with Him, and let the rest of us know beforehand! Then we might take your point of view seriously.

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

Comment #78025 by Mr DArcy on October 11, 2007 at 2:11 pm

revcort is right when he states:

the clear teaching of the Bible is that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.

That clearly is the teaching of the Bible. The point however, is what credence is to be given to this book? Whether the Bible was written by bronze age people or yesterday makes no difference to its validity/ or lack of validity. What all our resident Christian contributors have ignored is why we sceptics do not accept what they assert about their holy book.

Christians are after all in a minority in this world, although they may make up the largest religion,(if indeed Christianity can be called a single religion). The fact is that most of the world's population is not Christian, and probably most have never heard of Christ.

revcort and his ilk may happily spout from scripture about who is to be condemned, in the meantime the rest of get on with this, our only, life.

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

Comment #77768 by Mr DArcy on October 10, 2007 at 12:48 pm

revcort, whatever else, you're well meaning, even if your God isn't.

You like fantasies, so do I. Especially, Lord of the Rings - a brilliant story, and Harry Potter. Probably you don't like Harry Potter because comfortable Christians in the Bible Belt have spoken condemnatory words about what a bad influence the stories are. Actually the fuss wasn't so bad with the last book, was it?

I would like revcort to conduct a gedanken experiment:

but I try to filter that out as part of the whole fantasy genre.

Just for a minute try to imagine the faith you obviously get so much from, as just another fantasy. Most of us here do it all the time and it really does make life simpler. Don't worry about sinning, just try to see things from a different point of view. I try it all the times with you guys and I think I get the drift.

And don't worry about your faith, "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".

78. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77521 by Mr DArcy on October 9, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Christian readers will perhaps forgive me, a sinner, if I admit to being entirely underwhelmed by the message the great Son of God, God, Trinity Member, Jesus Christ. Mark Taunton quotes the great man/god (1624):

Jesus required: "when you give alms, let not your right hand know what your left hand is doing".

This is really the Word of God? It's truly revealing. We need some Hebrew experts to re-examine the passage to see if the original word now interpreted as "hand" in English, actually has another meaning of "brain hemisphere", in the older version of the language. If this theory is correct it could explain why the religious mind is incapable of reasoning when it comes to explaining its faith.

Actually the quote as given seems more like advice to large corporations and governments, who are shrouded in secrecy, much as the prophets were.

On the radio at the moment is a performance of Handel's "Messiah". A very beautiful aria has just been sung the words of which were something like "Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain brought down". Can Mark Taunton explain why this hasn't happened yet after all it was written in the Bible?

79. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77520 by Mr DArcy on October 9, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Jesus required: "when you give alms, let not your right hand know what your left hand is doing".

80. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77315 by Mr DArcy on October 9, 2007 at 3:23 am

For what it's worth, I prefer to describe my views as materialist, as opposed to the idealist ones expressed by the world's religions.

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

Comment #77311 by Mr DArcy on October 9, 2007 at 2:44 am

I hope the Creation Museum shows how the lion's digestive system will evolve, once it enters to the Kingdom of Heaven, so that it can be vegetarian and safely lie down with the lamb.

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

Comment #77132 by Mr DArcy on October 8, 2007 at 2:10 pm

CHeard, what makes me angry?

I just love this world where 2 billion people live on less than $2.00 a day, and where thousands die every day from poverty related illnesses, eg. malnutrition, lack of clean water etc. This quite apart from all the wars and political mayhem.

If there was a benevolent creator as portrayed in say the Bible, then He could not possibly allow this state of affairs, being omnipotent and omniscient.

Angry yes, but not at a God that aint there!

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

Comment #76611 by Mr DArcy on October 6, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Perhaps I'm being mischevious, but the thought of revcort and his companions going to the Creation Museum reminded me of the old negro spiritual:

Dem bones, dem bones
Dem dry bones,
Dem bones , dem bones,
Dem dry bones,
Dem bones, dem bones,
Dem dry bones,
Now hear the word of the Lord!

A foot tapping good song if ever I heard one.

Will revcort's faith be tested by his visit to the Creation Museum? Tune in for the next episode, coming soon to a computer near you!

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

Comment #76337 by Mr DArcy on October 5, 2007 at 2:44 pm

revcort, I hope you have a good weekend together with your fellow companions. I just hope that when you look at the exhibits of the museum, you will bear in mind some of the counter arguments that you have come across on this thread. Is the world only 6-7000 years old? Are all the geologists, palaeontologists, cosmologists, astronomers, physicists, biologists and others all wrong about the evidence of a 4.5 billion year old Earth?

I suspect your mind is already made up, but from one human to another, have a great trip!

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

Comment #76163 by Mr DArcy on October 5, 2007 at 12:19 am

Has anything changed? Does revcort still believe in a 6 day creation of the universe and a 6500 year old Earth? revcort's good on scripture, but has he read any of the science that argues very strongly against a young Earth?

86. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75750 by Mr DArcy on October 3, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Theology - the study of God, is useless. To compare it to crapology would be insulting to crap, because all can agree that crap exists.

Feng Shui is on a par with theology, but chain saw juggling is a real art. A carefully handled chain saw can perform a lot of useful work. It can also do a lot of damage if handled improperly, which is why it involves a degree of training and intelligence on the part of the handler.

87. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75350 by Mr DArcy on October 2, 2007 at 11:33 am

The timing of this posting is incrediable. In the U.S. the state of Alabama just ruled against the sex toy industry. Alabama upheld the banning of all sales of sex toys in that state.

Didn't the Americans learn anything from prohibition? I expect Fat Sam and his protection crew will find a way to jump state borders and set up illicit sex dens. Perhaps the State of Alabama should seize all the sex toys and send them off to the Taliban!

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

Comment #75323 by Mr DArcy on October 2, 2007 at 10:25 am

I think revcort reveals more of himself than is perhaps advisable by describing the people who visit this site as the "peanut gallery". Now rev, most of us don't agree with you, but in the eyes of your theology, we are all part of the crown of creation.

Don't be getting too high and mighty rev., you might be cast out of heaven, like you know who!

89. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74787 by Mr DArcy on September 30, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I am blinded by The Truth, The Light, with his/her dazzling statement;

This same Bible contains prophecies where men claimed to speak the words of God. The historical fact that these prophecies came to pass is proof that God was, in fact, speaking through them. These prophets foretold an incredible amount of detail about the coming Messiah, and Jesus Christ fulfilled them to the letter. When Jesus Christ rose from the dead, He was seen by so many eyewitnesses, that word of His resurrection spread throughout the civilized world like wildfire. This is historical fact. No ordinary man could ever do this.

As Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The independent evidence of the existence of Jesus is about as strong as that for the existence of the demon barber Sweeny Todd. Sorry, The Truth, but your remarkable claims have been met with very deep scepticism, but then what else did you expect? When The Truth declares the message all the atheists will roll over and repent before being sent to fry?

Sorry, we're not that gullible here. It's no good spouting scripture, you have to actually argue a case.

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

Comment #74781 by Mr DArcy on September 30, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Here are brother john's words for the basis of his belief:

The existence of Jesus above all. Because what he did and said which includes his certified death (that was the spear in the side) and his resurrection are the whole basis for the Christian belief.

brother john is a Christian and in his 70s, so presumably he should have some knowledge of Christianity by now. Christianity without Christ would be like Hamlet without the prince, or Catholicism without the pope.

The lack of independent evidence about the existence of this "messiah", rather points to Christianity being built of a finely tuned house of cards. revcort's "independent" sources have been exposed above by others, so I await brother john's "certified" sources.

Until then brother, you are talking about human morality and behaviour.

Most religios accept what they have been taught as fact and never question it. The few apologists who do fight back against people like Dawkins, mostly; misrepresent his views, attack his character, find nit picking mistakes or more generally clothe their critiques in language so eloquently obscure and erudite, that no-one knows what the hell they're talking about.

brother john et al, the scientific approach demands evidence.

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

Comment #74560 by Mr DArcy on September 29, 2007 at 2:07 pm

brother john asks (898) what atheism means to me (and all others).

Very simply, to me, it means freedom from the mental straight jacket that religion of any kind forces upon its adherents.

It means that my mind is not full of of superstitous nonsensense.

It means I am free of pre-conceptions about my existence having any meaning at all. I realise that I am just very lucky to be here posting this message.

It also means that as I'm lucky to be here and able to post messages, that I can have a good laugh about the absurd religious ideas that some others hold.

Cheers brother john.

92. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73917 by Mr DArcy on September 26, 2007 at 2:53 pm

brother john writes:

The only way you can find out whether theology is a cumulative science or not - is either to ask someone who is competent in the subject - or else study the stuff for yourself.

If I am not mistaken theology means the study of God. brother john is being mischevious in comparing the study of something for which there is no evidence with a "cumulative science". The theories of science represent the best available explanations of nature in line with observed phenomena. For example; gravity, evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity etc.

To me, theology is completely unnecessary, and a complication. It is in the same frame as dragonology or OxfordDonology, a complete waste of time. First show us your God, then we will study Him. Until then, like Laplace, God is a hypothesis that is not needed.

brother john appears to be part of the Christian counter attack on TGD:

I believe in the utter nonsensical nature of any argument contrary to our beliefs.

In the prelude to his possible future atheist credo, brother john has in fact summed up the Christian attitude to opposing views.
The point is brother john, that you now have to convince people of your point of view, not just state it as given by your almighty.

Piss quick criticisms of Dawkins' arguments are not going to bring you many converts

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

Comment #73878 by Mr DArcy on September 26, 2007 at 1:15 pm

revcort writes:

People are becoming more and more wicked and more and more God-hating. The venom I see here is mild.

There are of course more people in the world today than ever before, so it shouldn't be a surprise if there is more perceived "wickedness". I do not for a moment accept the Biblical description of mankind as forever being in a downward spiral of sin.

People are basically the same in all parts of the world. Being essentially social animals, we have had to co-operate with each other from pre written history to today. Otherwise we would not be here. I, for one, do not blame revcort's God anymore than I blame Frodo Baggins, for anything that is wrong in the world. How can you blame something that is imaginary?

To continue the Shakespearean theme "the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars. But in ourselves that we are underlings". (Quoting from memory , could be wrong).

Underlings to the great God of capital.

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

Comment #73829 by Mr DArcy on September 26, 2007 at 9:45 am

At last I agree with something revcort has written:

No. I can't provide you with proof. That's why it's called faith. Anyone who claims to believe in God and says they can prove it empirically is lying. It can't be done. A being who exists in the supernatural and, by definition, out of our time and space is impossible to track or prove.

I think revcort has made Dawkins' point exactly. You see it's the lack of verifiable evidence for the enormous claims made by the world's religions which would indicate their shaky foundations. As Christians take the Bible as the basis of their religion, revcort quite rightly takes CHeard to task for questioning parts of the Bible, because as revcort sees it if any part is wrong, then all of it could be wrong! Yes that's quite right Rev, your holy book could well have mistakes in it!

revcort cannot allow these heretical thoughts to have any credence in his faith system, because that would be the end of his heavenly safety net, and presumably his source of income as well. No! Satan has to be real, hell has to be real and we're all (well most of us), damned!

95. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73759 by Mr DArcy on September 26, 2007 at 4:50 am

The Chic Comics just show the religion Christianity for what it is: childish, threatening, ignorant, belligerent and money grabbing.

I daily give praise to my parents for not bringing me up as a believer. Perhaps Jefferson was right, the only way to deal with the ridiculous is ridicule.

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

Comment #73735 by Mr DArcy on September 26, 2007 at 3:00 am

In England it's Wednesday morning and no doubt revcort will be asleep dreaming of demons and saints.

Let's face it, the man is not capable of rational enquiry when it comes to questioning his faith. He's always had it, something has strengthened it, and now he be d#####d if he's going to admit that those pesky atheists might have a point. The man is seriously arguing that the Earth stood still for a day, is 6500 years old and there is a real hell, among other absurdities.

Well revcort, I don't believe it. Can you convince me of these things without spouting from your holy book. I mean do you actually have a serious argument to put?

You see asserting the existence of your God, does not impress me any more than those devout muslims or jews or hindus about their gods.

Arguments about the number of angels able to boogie on the camel's back as it passes through the eye of a needle are of little interest to me.

No wonder Darwin did, and Dawkins does upset your ridiculous view of nature.

97. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72550 by Mr DArcy on September 21, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Pewcatchoo, my head hangs before my toes:

Mr DArcy, hang your head in shame sir. Hi Ho Silver Lining by the Yardbirds, I think not. Written by Scott English and Larry Weiss and performed by the inimitable Jeff Beck. Tut tut, Eric Clapton; he wishes.

I also got the lyrics wrong to "Hi ho Silver Lining". It should have been "You're everywhere and nowhere baby, that's where you're at".

I still think the lyrics are a fair description of the modern (and ancient) God.

As to whether Eric Clapton is the manifestation of the divine in the 20th century, I have heard argument from some theologians that Barry Manilow could in fact be the One!

As to the 21st century, could we have someone divine in the artist "formerly known as Messiah"?

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

Comment #72543 by Mr DArcy on September 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm

His most defining quality is holiness- transcendence. His holiness makes Him unlike any other and His purposes and ways are impossible to map out completely.

Our dear reverend will not go down willingly, especially when the fire of hell awaits him and the rest of us. revcort resorts to the "God is unknowable" and "mysterious are the ways of God" argument to cut out any rational discussion of his faith.

To be polite rev, you have used up your "get out of jail" cards too many times. Your whole belief system is based on a very shaky house of cards. Forget God, forget Satan, forget heaven and hell and face reality.

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

Comment #72222 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 2:42 pm

revcort's trying:

Actually, I've just read some scientists that say that this creature was actually all bird, not half and half. But I'm still reading.

I don't know if archeopteryx was a bird or a plane, but I don't think he was superman!

Clark Kent and T Rex, now there's an interesting idea for a fantasy!

100. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72203 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Sorry, non believers, you see you just can't win this argument. This God character is just such slippery eel that logic doesn't apply. For example, Skinner presumably believes in:

the biblical understanding of God as both immanent and transcendent � God dwelling within all things, but also greater than all things � and of God as a living presence.

To my simple mind this reminds me of the old 60's song;

"He's everywhere and nowhere baby,
That's where he's at."

If memory serves correctly, there was also "hi ho silver lining". The Yardbirds with Eric Clapton on guitar. In the late 60's and 70's it was not at all unusual to see graffiti on walls stating "Eric Clapton is God", or words to that effect. Perhaps our tame theologian was inspired by the Cream of the gods!

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 | Next