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

Comment #72166 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Oh dear!

Our Reverend is getting into full flow. He's on his home ground when quoting the scriptures.

He has done the usual theological sidestep of avoiding answering any serious criticisms of his faith, eg. the lack of historical evidence for Jesus, the overwhelming evidence for evolution, the impossibility of a 6500 year old Earth and universe, (See above) He has avoided any proof for his God apart from asserting the Bible. Well, his congregation may well like his style, but then they, like him have been conditioned through childhood to accept this excreta without question.

Preacher! thy seeds fall on stony ground.

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

Comment #72160 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 pm

revcort says:

The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, That one may avoid the snares of death. Proverbs 14:27

In other words, if you fear the Lord, you will have everlasting life. So we've got to fear and love the Lord at the same time. We must perpetually crawl around on our knees fearing divine smiting and at the same time love the thing that is about to smite us if we stray.

What a weird, twisted view of human beings, that they will only behave properly if they are afraid of eternal punishment. To believe in revcort's Lord, you have to be bribed with an afterlife and threatened with eternal damnation.

revcort you can keep your Lord, because He exists only in your immagination. You can be scared of Satan if you want, but he won't touch me.

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

Comment #72115 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 11:32 am

Dear brother john, you ask me a question so I will do my best to reply:

Mr DArcy. It has only just occurred to me.

What made you think that I have not thought seriously about Christianity?

On reading your rather long message 374 above, it seemed to me that for all the words, there was not much of substance in your criticism of Dawkins' views, and in fact you agreed with Dawkins on a lot of things including the quote from Stanford "Simply religion isn't about facts".

brother john, I'm sure from what you say, that you have thought long and hard about your faith, but in my experience of religious people, most of them just accept what they are told from childhood, and go on into adulthood to propagate the same ideas themselves. If I assumed you were one of those people, I apologise. I still think your ideas are wrong. To be short: no God, no Jesus, no Allah, no Zeus etc. etc. no virgin birth, no miracles, no heaven or hell and no after life. (No fairies, elves, orcs, ghosts, and the like either).

Whilst disagreeing with you I wish you the best, because after all, we can all agree that we are human beings.

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

Comment #72025 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 7:04 am

Methinks brother john doth protest too much. Not being a literary man, I am not fit to comment on the particular style of writing that Dawkins used in TGD. However, the book seemed to me well written and easily understood. It was not too dry and academic, nor too many long words and obscure references, (although there were some).

If Dawkins has used ridicule and caused offence, it seems that these are largely in the eye of the beholder. The Douglas Adam's remark about the garden and the fairies, seems entirely legitimate to me. We have a wonderful planet here, let's not complicate the picture.

If these are brother john's only criticisms of the book, then I must hope that he is having a serious think about his Christianity, which after all is not based on facts.

That Christianity has kept on going for nearly 2000 years, is no great surprise. Religions being organised superstition, are kept alive socially by generations of believers. brother john should perhaps re-read the section of TGD where Dawkins talks about the Cargo people and their (new) religion based on the arrival of boats carrying goodies. A religion entirely explained by the facts that Dawkins gives. Their "messiah" is just as real to them as Jesus is to Christians.

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

Comment #71203 by Mr DArcy on September 18, 2007 at 3:20 am

revcort is presumably currently asleep, (at least mentally), and unable to reply. In his last message above he parades his ignorance:

#2 The earth is about 6,000 years old based on the ages of those people recorded in the Bible. The so-called "evidence" that the earth is billions of years old (and apparently getting older by about an average of at least 100 million years per year according to the changes in estimates even during my lifetime) When I was being lied to in science class, the earth was millions of years old. Now that my kids are being lied to, it's now billions of year- or is it trillions now? I'm losing track. Oh, my original point, these estimates are based on things like carbon 14 dating, which itself is based upon assumptions that the earth is billions of years old. These dating methods have been proven unreliable.

As revcort has such a disdain for the currently most accurate scientific methods of dating the Earth's rocks, such as radiometric dating, no doubt when he is ill he he will send for the hydrochloric acid, rather than modern medicine based on the same scientific approach that gives us the ages of rocks. The "so-called evidence" for the age of the Earth and indeed is very strong and arises from different branches of investigation. The Earth is not "millions" of years old, but 4.5 billion years old, the sun about 5 billion, and the universe about 13.7 billion. Even revcort's dismissal of carbon14 dating, convenientlly misses out the fact that it can be reliably used up to about 50,000 years. According to my maths, that's about 6 x the Biblical 6500 years!

The light from the far end of our galaxy (100,000 light years), which set off 6500 years ago hasn't even arrived on Earth yet! We shouldn't even be able to see quasars like 273C which are estimated to be some 10 billion light years away, because according to the Biblical account there just hasn't been enough time yet for the light to get here. The astronomers and cosmologists must be conspiring with the geologists and paleontologists.

Yes revcort! You were certainly lied to, but I suspect, not in the science class, but in the Bible class. Your uncritical acceptance of the Bible is on a par with millions of muslims who think that their Koran is perfect and the word of God.

As this thread has a Shakespearean flavour to it:

"A plague on both your houses".

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

Comment #71161 by Mr DArcy on September 18, 2007 at 12:24 am

Hang on to your wallets!

The Rev Cort will around with the collection bowl soon.

Oh Mighty Fat Sam, give us protection from this angel of Death!

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

Comment #71032 by Mr DArcy on September 17, 2007 at 3:14 pm

I'm wondering if the rev cort is here to prove that religion "simply isn't about facts". I suspect he's being paid by the Discovery Institute as a wum.

"Get in among them monkey men Hank, and give them the wrath of the Lord!"

Well revcort, I fear not the Lord's judgement and I'm certain that all gods (including yours) are the products of that most amazing thing currently known in the universe, the human brain. Is that dogmatic enough for you?

108. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70663 by Mr DArcy on September 16, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Richard Dawkins comes in the category of "empty vessels make most noise". And as usual, he ignores inconvenient objections. As for not dealing with theology, I would settle for Richard Dawkins understanding basic philosophy. If his work in biology is as poorly researched, I fear for the standards of British science."

"I suspect that Richard Dawkins would still dismiss the beliefs and experiences of billions of thinking people even if Jesus appeared in person and performed miracles just for him. This is inconsistent with being open-minded and open to scientific enquiry and intelligent debate. Curiously, the evidence shows that whilst Dawkins might hate God, God loves Dawkins."

"The living cell is complex structure that includes so many interactive dimensions that to believe these all came together by chance is so improable that even the most inteligent scientist looks like a buffoon if he/she expects us to believe such hypothetical nonsence. That these cells then gathered together ,and witrh no fore plan, designed the amoeba, let alone the human being is so outrageously obsurd that one must doubt the sanity of those that believe in this nonsense.

Theologians of the world disunite. You have nothing to lose but your ignorance. You have a world to gain!

109. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70641 by Mr DArcy on September 16, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Essentially, the critics of Dawkin's views about religion have little choice but to be parasitic, which is why Wee Flea pick n' mixes his criticisms of the messages here, instead of coming out with a forthright critique of Dawkin's views.

Certainly in this part of the virtual world, the Bible bangers will not get away with virgin births, winged horses and you'd better believe it or you'll fry, type arguments! To come here and try the usual browbeating "this is the Way" approach, I suspect will be met with derision. The priests have had it more or less their own way for far too long, but this has weakened their ability, if they ever had it, to argue a case.

When you consider the religious position, they actually have nothing positive to say about the human condition or the way forward. Theirs is an attitude of submission to the supernatural in the expectation of divine gifts, or at the least not eternal punishment. Having such a paucity of ideas themselves, means that they have to act flea like, and latch onto the ideas of others.

The days are long gone when we have to view the world through the eyes of a priest.

110. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70003 by Mr DArcy on September 13, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Well done to David Robertson, apart from finding fault with the contributors here, (for we are all sinners), he has actually said something positive about his own beliefs:

I believe In God the Father, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son.....(see the rest of the apostles creed).

Well as a born again sceptic, perhaps David could provide me with some evidence (Dr Benway's rules apply) for the existence of God, heaven, Jesus Christ and whatever else he happens to believe in. Until he or someone else does provide evidence, barring a sudden celestial appearance of the old creator in person, then I shall continue to remain sceptical.

Perhaps David will find Satan's work in the re-appearance of foot and mouth disease in Surrey, or else in the appalling conditions in which a large chunk of humanity lives and dies, (most of whom don't even know about Christianity). But then I don't expect any religious minister to take a broad view of humanity, especially wee free ones.

IMHO priests of any kind have nothing to teach but ignorance and superstition. They are the dead hand of the past.

But prove me wrong David.

111. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69620 by Mr DArcy on September 12, 2007 at 12:41 am

NMcC, calm down. Communism is very similar to organized religions.
Many people in communist countries were religious, and the Church and clergy were doing fine despite what some may believe.

The so-called communist countries were always capitalist in nature. The ordinary workers still worked/work for wages and a privileged class lived/live off their labour. Goods were/are only produced if there is a profit to be made. The communist rhetoric of Lenin, Mao, Castro and Stalin has misled millions over the years, but the true nature of the society is clearly apparent. From the Russian workers' point of view what was the miraculous change that happened between Gorbachov and Yeltsin apart from the change of leader and some state enterprises being privatised?

Stalin may have been an atheist, but he was brought up in the church and was trained as a priest. He knew and understood the social power of organised religion, a knowledge he used ruthlessly during his rule of Russian capitalism.

112. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69528 by Mr DArcy on September 11, 2007 at 4:07 pm

As far as I am concerned, the more fleas and believers that contribute to this site, the better.

Taking a broad brush approach to the contributions made by The Wee Flea, alias David Robertson, I can't help noticing that his points seem to be centred on the attitudes, motives, incentives, characteristics etc of the, true, mainly atheist, contributors. Yes Dawkins is making money. Yes Pewcatchoo was a bit rude ... etc.

However, in making out that the contributors to this board are in many ways flawed, (I include myself), David Robertson has been very careful not to put his own point of view. I.e. belief in the supernatural, Jesus being the Son of God and our Saviour, and all the other gobbledegook pedalled by the Christian religions, of which the wee free church is a miniscule part, but quite strong in Scotland.

So, please David, take advantage of Richard Dawkins' largesse, and put your point of view here. You never know, you might make a convert. Put all us ignorant sinners right!

113. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69477 by Mr DArcy on September 11, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Unfortunately I'm not new, but I am an atheist. Good luck in seeing if these rookies can give us some information we don't already know.

My guess is that many of them got "uncomfortable" with their mental straight jackets and were tempted by natural human curiosity to find look outside the boundaries.