Comments by Frank Hodson

Comment #194457 by Frank Hodson on June 16, 2008 at 8:41 pm

What was Dawkins on about when he referred to Sherlock Holmes' blithe ignorance of the planets? Holmes (or Conan Boyle) is absolutely right, in that why would one require information that isn't pertinent to the task at hand? As Einstein once said "Knowledge is limited; but imagination encircles the world". Indeed, even the revered physicist himself was once spot quizzed by a reporter on the speed of sound, to which the ex-patent clerk replied "I neither know or retain such information, because one can find that information in books". Likewise, if Holmes did require the knowledge of the planes then he would have sought it in a library. Detective work relies heavily upon the imagination, the capacity to think outside the box, and the ability to infer from the clues deposited at a crime scene. It doesn't rely upon inconsequential facts such as the name of a planet.

2. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #51706 by Frank Hodson on June 24, 2007 at 8:20 am

Some interesting points, Donald.

"Excuse me? Is this a new strand in religious thinking? The traditional reason for prayer is to ask "god" to intervene and cause something in the world to be different from what it otherwise would be." - Donald.

Possibly a difference of interpretation? Would I be correct in thinking that your idea of God intervening is a physical one, rather than my interpretation of a spiritual one? Do you think that the victim's family are praying for God to physically intervene by, for example, zapping the abductor with a lighting bolt? Or to sock him in the jaw with his almighty fist, and then aid the little girl to safety by verbally disclosing the address of the perpetrator to the police, as scottishgeologist suggested? Because my idea of God's intervention is via the Holy Spirit, appealing to the possibility of the abductor having a "compassionate" side, or conscience. Okay, I concede. I suppose that that, in its own way, is asking for a miracle.

"For the most part atheists do not seek to impose their beliefs on others." - Donald.

That is very untrue. Communism/Marxism is inherently atheistic, and one of their main goals is to quash religion and spirituality by imposing their ideology on others, often using unethical methods. Did you know that Communism is seen by their followers as a political science? Where do you think political correctness derives from? It is Marxist propaganda designed to distort truths by deconstructing historical texts and inserting their own meaning. I do not wish to drag you into a political debate, so I will briefly mention that our state elite (that are majority secular and atheist) are extremely hostile to the principles and practices of Christianity. They are introducing legislation that prevents Christians the freedom to practice their beliefs. How is that not imposing beliefs on others?

3. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #51682 by Frank Hodson on June 24, 2007 at 4:23 am

Thanks for elaborating on my point of faith.

However was "Religion is for losers" necessary? If I had come on here and point blankly stated that "Atheism is for losers" then I surmise that I would most likely have been heavily criticized. My intitial post, opinionated but affable, received unfair and unsupported denouncements that I am not "open to debate" and "not clear thinking enough to realise that you could be wrong".

Yet, since atheist-secularism is now commonly accepted by many as the only true system of belief, it therefore would appear justified in acting belligerently towards any converse attitudes to that belief. Remember that in draconian times, denying the existence of God was a punishable offense of blasphemy. It is just as plausable for a culture to evolve whereby any proclaimation of the existence of God will become that very same heresy. Two extremes, at the opposite end of the spectrum. Just like Facism and Communism.

Prayers are not meant to perform miracles. If it was that simple, then maybe I should have had a chin-wag with God on slipping me the answers to my Forensic Science degree tests via the medium of prayer. Those people pray in the hope that the abductor will find it in his/her heart to return the child unharmed. They pray to God to look upon the abductor/s compassionate side, in the hope of mercy for the unfortunate victim. Okay, so the ritual of prayer does not guarantee results. However, I do not see the harm in prayer, and why you would feel the urge to belittle it out of frivolity.

4. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #51612 by Frank Hodson on June 23, 2007 at 6:26 pm

"I never said that science was about "bringing peace"

vs

And so it would appear that many people easily forget that science does not hold the key to all life's problems and challenges." - Frank Hodson.

I think you know that to be an extremely tenuous link, and a desperate attempt to put words into my mouth. Maybe you would care to enlighten me on how stating that "science does not hold the key to all life's problems and challenges" is synoymous with "bringing peace"? Straw man, indeed.

"It is a little tough to speculate on a place you have never been, or seen." - Frank Hodson.

Response; "What about a god you have never seen?" - BillySands.

Did I not previously state that I am not "certain that a god exists"? If I had visible evidence, then it would not be an act of faith on my part.

"When has Christianity ever promised to bring a Utopian society or world?" - Frank Hodson

Response; "I suppose that depends on how you read these verses that say god will bring peace to earth." - BillySands.

Please use semantics correctly. How is "peace" synonymous with "utopia"? A peaceful society can be one maintained by law and order. However, that doesn't necessarily infer that there will no problems or "disputes due to differences of opinion" as I stated. A Utopia is an "imagined perfect place or state of things". If you don't believe me, check a thesaurus.

"where do I accuse you of ranting?"

If you reread my post, I said "other people" of ranting. I just found it amusingly paradoxical that you accuse others of ranting, then proceed to criticize my own post by the using the irrelevant introduction of "homophobia" and "heaven", presumably to elevate your opinon above my own. If you check my original post, I mention nothing of heaven, or homosexual activities. Sorry, but you should try to debate points head on.

5. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #51590 by Frank Hodson on June 23, 2007 at 3:20 pm

"Frank, science is about understanding and finding the truth, not about bringing peace" - BillySands.

I never said that science was about "bringing peace". If you think I've implied this, feel free to quote me. Either do that, or concede that you have misunderstood what I have written.

"but I dont believe in the concept of sin the way you do, and certainly dont think i have done anything that would deserve endless torment and suffering in hell" - BillySands.

The Christian idiom "We are all sinners", to my mind, does not suggest that we are all destined for a state of posthumous eternity in hell, and therefore we have to beg for forgiveness prior to our death to avoid a life with Beelzebub. It merely implies that we all have our faults, and that no individual is infallible. As Winston Churchill said "All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes." I believe Einstein said something similar. Incidentally, if memory serves me well, I recall that Jesus despised the Pharisees and Scribes because when they prayed to God, they thanked him for "not being like other people". Jesus said that God looks kindly upon the humble, not the self-righteous.

"BTW if we are all sinners (i naturally disagree*) and because of this, the world cant be perfect, how do you think it would be any different in heaven." - BillySands.

I cannot be certain if there is a heaven, or a hell. Just as I cannot be certain that a God actually exists. There is doubt in my religious beliefs, for I am not, nor is any other person, all knowing. If there is a heaven, then I'll find out when I die. It is a little tough to speculate on a place you have never been, or seen. But, human history has shown itself to have perpetual problems on earth. From that alone, I would surmise that human future will continue in a similar fashion.

"I don't feel from your post that you are open to debate - David isn't, so dont be disappointed if I dont reply" - BillySands.

Why would I be disappointed? I wasn't expecting this reply from you, as my initial post wasn't addressed to you.

And no offense, but your post is a little rich coming from someone that has accused other people of ranting. But I suppose you would consider your post to be of "reasoned debate".

6. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #51574 by Frank Hodson on June 23, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Hi David. I'd heard about your response to Dr. Dawkins on this website via a synopsis of your book on a Christian website. I then proceeded to investigate this site, and more to the point, your post. Being that I am impressed and intrigued by what you have written, I intend to purchase your book!

Thanks,
Frank.

7. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #51551 by Frank Hodson on June 23, 2007 at 11:09 am

That's a lot of responses! Alas, I do not have the time to read them all.

But what I will say, is this; I would be willing to bet that Dr. Richard Dawkins, as an intelligent and experienced evolutionary biologist, would agree that David Robertson has written an articulated and reasoned letter of response. Despite his atheism, if Dr. Dawkins is a man who sincerely does search for truth, then he is indeed on the path to God, whether he himself chooses to believe it or not.

"Faith, superstition, and religious nonsense have been failing to bring peace on earth for at least fifty centuries. It's a bit unfair to demand that science do it in one - especially considering that bringing peace on earth isn't even the goal of science." - By Some Dude on November 10, 2006 at 1:56 pm (Page 1 on the reply to this thread)

When has Christianity ever promised to bring a Utopian society or world? Since Christianity states that we are all sinners, and therefore not perfect, then it realistically and logically accepts that there will always be disputes due to differences of opinion, and challenges against evil and tyranny that more often than not, is brought about by deceit and treachery for one's own personal selfish gain. Just like religion, science has been abused by individuals and organised groups to manipulate people. A prime example of this is the recent uncompromising and unfounded fanaticism of man made global warming, supposedly backed by irrefutable scientific evidence. But did anyone see Channel 4 'Great Global Warming Swindle' that cleverly, featuring qualified scientists, argued against the polemic? Besides, is it not the Devil's greatest trick to deceive us into believing that he does not exist?

I will also add, that for those of you who unquestionably agree with Dr. Dawkins in that religion and God are allegedly the sole cause of all evil, then consider this; the liberties that we currently have in England, but are being fast eroded and encroached on by an arrogant and ominous state elite, stem from the foundations of Judao-Christian beliefs and principles. And so it would appear that many people easily forget that science does not hold the key to all life's problems and challenges.