1. Flea Circus!

Comment #33004 by stpetes on April 19, 2007 at 1:53 am

Once again the incompetance, intolerance and ignorance of this site is being demonstrated. Keep up the good work.

It is incompetant because despite being contacted by myself and my publishers you manage once again to give my book the wrong title and the wrong cover. If you want to see the correct version then go to http://www.freechurch.org/popups/07special.htm

I have to wonder why Josh does not correct this and continues to post information which is false. All of you making the statement about the cover and the apostrophe are wasting your time. You are commenting on something that does not exist. I am sorry that it takes so long to get this through to this website but I really cannot do anything more. If the website manager wishes to perpetuate myth and falsehood then I guess it is in keeping with the rest of the site.

It is intolerant because you arrgoantly assume that everyone who disagrees with you is just trying to make money off Dawkins etc (hence the flea remark). Noone even considers here that your atheist prophets are trying to make money out of religion (TGD at £20 for a polemic against religion which really contributes nothing to the discussion and is an embarrasment to most serious thinking atheists is robbery!). Nor do you take into account that Harris had his book promoted to the tune of $200,000. Give me that kind of promotion and I assure you I could get a book to the top of the best seller list. We live in a market orientated consumer capitalist society. Don't kid yourselves that these books have risen to the top because of their brilliance. Marketing is everything. And why doesn't JOsh feature the numerous books advocating atheism that have just come on the market? I guess it's because they are 'the Truth' and are not seeking to make money. The fact that they have all come out just after TGD and Harris is of course just a coincidence!

And ignorant because most of you comment without having read any of the books concerned. Yet you feel free to pontificate, ridicule and mock things you know nothing about. You announce that your prophet and your philosophy(religion) is right because well, they are just right. You know it. You feel it. And anything who dares to disagree with you is clearly wrong - therefore you do not even need to read what they write. You just know. There are numerous examples of this ignorance on this website but let's just take one from this thread. Martin Gill tell us from his vast font of knowledge that "None of their authors have any qualifications worth the paper they are written on either.". So Dr Alistair McGarth's PhD in biology from Oxford University is worthless? My History degree from the University of Edinburgh is worthless? Your arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking.

And Paul - if you want numerous atheist myths then read my book. I'll give you two to start with - a) atheists are de facto more intelligent than theists (the empirical proof of this is this site and the posts that will follow this one!) and b) science and religion are necessarily opposed.

David Robertson

2. Faith

Comment #23228 by stpetes on February 27, 2007 at 2:54 am

Sadly I will not be able to respond to the substantive points in the various posts as once again I have been banned as a Troll. I will have to leave this by making the following points -

1) I have never sought to hide my name so those such as Billy who congratulate themselves as some kind of cyber detectives need to overcome their conspiracy theory paranoias. The only reason I used a different sign on was that I was banned.

2) I am astonished at being labelled a troll. My opinions are genuine and I have not posted a great deal. The fact that my opinions seem to rouse such vitriol is not a reason to ban myself but rather to have a look at those who post otherwise. Even in this thread I have been told I have a face that only a jackboot could love, stupid, a stench etc. You even have ridiculous comments about my motivation (Billy for example seems to know publishers who give 50% to their authors - please introduce me!)

When I came on to this website it was to respond to criticism of my article on The God Delusion. I was astonished at the response. The last thing I expected was to find this website behaving like that of an extremist fundamentalist religious group. But that is the way it is. Josh admirably puts up different articles (pro-and anti) but the responses are always the same - and indeed usually incredibly boring. Most threads invole atheists congratulating themselves on how wise and wonderful they are, whilst mocking everyone else as de facto stupid. At first I considered this behaviour to be the kind of stupid behaviour that ones gets on most Message boards and I thought it was unfair to blame Richard Dawkins for the excesses of his own disciples. But then I realised that this is his website and he does both read and control what goes on - so the responsibility does lie with him. It says a great deal about his so called rational intelligent approach that posts which are critical of his position are removed (or trolled) for being offensive whilst those which swear, insult, abuse and denigrate are left.

The worst aspect about this, and the saddest thing (though not for me) is that your reactions and actions have provided undeniable proof of the fact that you are acting as fundamentalists - which however you redefine it means simply an inability to question, think or even assume that you might be wrong. You all know there is no God and that anyone who thinks otherwise is either dishonest or stupid.

Let me also say this. You missed a great opportunity. Like most religious people I have often had doubts and questions. I accept completely that if the evidence was there I would have to change my position. If you had been able to present a reasonable defence of atheism then who knows, you may have caused me to doubt and change my mind. Instead you have provided more than ample justification for the Bible's teaching about human beings and more than ample proof that atheism is a faith position, based not upon empirical evidence, but upon numerous others factors including personal experience, feeling, prejudice, irrationality and hatred.

If anyone wishes to continue the discussion then please feel free to e-mail or read the rest of the articles at www.freechurch.org

I would like to say it's been fun. But I'm not supposed to lie. It has however been enlightening, disturbing and sad.

David Robertson david.robertson@freechurch.org

3. Faith

Comment #23023 by stpetes on February 25, 2007 at 11:49 pm

And so the atheist response to this well written and thoughtful article (an article I do not agree with) which accuses atheism of fundamentalism, intolerance and dogmatism is to declare it wrong by being fundamentalist, intolerant and dogmatic! Nice one guys!

"It cannot be done through reason, as the core of the dogma is faith, and that is beyond reason."

Who says? (the trouble is that you are so dogmatic that you think you are the only ones who are reasonable).


"My believes are utterly open to attack as they are based on reason."

Yes - I think we got the point. Your beliefs are based on reason. Anyone who disagrees with your 'beleifs' is by definition unreasonable.

"There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist, because unlike Slee, an atheist can be persuaded to change their mind. All I need to become a believer is sufficient evidence."

Yep _ I notice a lot of atheists changing their mind (of course, silly me, I forgot that you alone have the truth and therefore there is no need to change your mind). On the other hand I also know many religious people who often change their minds.

"We do not tolerate bullshit: we fight it. Unlike civil disobedience (which we decry), we (Canadians) do so within in the law: but, we also do so in as nasty a way we can. If we can make the nutbars out as nutbars, we do so."

Those who disagree with you are defacto bullshit nutters whom you need to be nasty about.

"O.K. Hands up all those who have met an atheist suicide bomber?" - One of the more inane atheist myths/comments. Hands up who has ever met a religious suicide bomber. No-one here? Does not mean they do not exist. For your information the majority of suicide bombings in the last few years have been done by the secular Tamil Tigers. In the 20th Century Stalin encouraged his troops to committ suicide in the name of atheism. BUt hey, why let facts get in the way of your fundamentalist atheist belief?!

"I'd love to see a negative article on Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or militant atheism in general that doesn't resort to lies, strawmen, and misrepresentations."

No you wouldn't. And in your eyes that would be impossible. Because if anyone disagrees with your faith then by definition they must be resorting to lies, strawmen and misrepresentation. There have been numerous articles which have ripped TGD to shreds. But the believers still keep the faith.

"It would make it easier for me to believe that people who "disagree with me" aren't profoundly dishonest."

Nope. You have a psycological need to believe and that is a powerful motivating force for you to consider everyone who disagrees with you as 'profoundly dishonest'.

"But there is apparently something left that we still need to challenge (nutbars always have their day). Apparently. And that would be? Something like, well, it just feels good to me? C'mon. I am a past-parent (my son is now 22) and we dealt with this when he was about 4. If you encounter any one older that is still so confused, I recommend false sympathy and sight-lines to a fast exit. You really have a life to live and better things to do."

Good one! Anyone who disagrees with you has the emotional and mental maturity of a four year old. Don't bother talking to them.

"You're unlikely to get that because generally what RD writes is true."

Once again a circular arguement.

"If TGD is an example of militant atheism, then it does not say "God does not exist" it says "God almost certainhly does not exist"."

Pathetic. And ignorant. When TGD says 'GOd almost certainly does not exist' it is a rhetorical device and a scientific necessity (because in absolute terms all science has to be theorhetically provisional). Dawkins places belief in God on a par with belief in the tooth fairy. He believes in neither. Don't play word games.

"Atheism by its nature is not truly militant imo in that atheists dont usually demand anything that a theist shouldnt also agree with - such as freedom of (And from) religion, separation of church and state, etc."

Let me see. Religion should be banned in public. Parents should not be allowed to teach their children religion (it is worse than sexual abuse according to TGD). Yep atheists are rational peaceful creatures who have no demands!

"I'm not sure its a good idea for folks to call themselves "militant aheists" as it suggests an extremism that few atheists have."

But the trouble is that under the guise of 'moderate' atheism the extremists flourish!

4. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22612 by stpetes on February 20, 2007 at 2:07 am

It sounds good but in actual fact is really meaningless and illogical rhetoric similar to George Orwell's Newspeak. A couple of examples -
"We, the people of Europe, hereby affirm our common values. They are based not on a single culture or tradition but are founded in all of the cultures that make up modern Europe."

Really? So the Islamic culture that demands the subjugation of women is part of our common values. And are the humanist society really saying that Calvinism and Catholocism (fairly important parts of European history) are part of the common values that Europe wants to uphold. I don't think so. It's meaningless drivel.

"We affirm the equality of men and women. All persons regardless of race, origin, religion or belief, language, gender, sexual orientation or ability must have equal treatment before the law."

Again this is meaningless. If I believe that black people are inferior should I have equal treatment? If I think my religion allows me to beat up my wife should I have equal treatment? And if my sexual orientation is paedophilia or bestiality should I have equal treatment? Again it is high sounding but meaningless.

"We affirm the right of everyone to adopt and follow a religion or belief of their choosing. But the beliefs of any group may not be used to limit the rights of others."

Same again. This is practically impossible. This belief itself is a limit to the rights of others.

"We hold that the state must remain neutral in matters of religion and belief, favouring none and discriminating against none."

So if my religion teaches that all Jews are vermin who should be exterminated then the State should remain neutral?


"We uphold both tolerance and freedom of expression."

Without limits? Including racism?

"We affirm the right of everyone to open and comprehensive education."

But meanwhile we will continue to send our children to expensive private education which we can afford, whilst leaving the poor with the dregs.

"We reject intimidation, violence and incitement to violence in the furtherance of disputes, and hold that conflicts must be resolved through negotiation and by legal means."

Excellent. Although again there is an inherent contradiction. One assumes that this new Europe will have an army and a police force.

"We uphold freedom of inquiry in every sphere of human life, and the application of science in the service of human welfare. We seek to use science creatively, not destructively."

Good. So scientists will be banned from working in the arms race or creating new biological weapons and of course there will be no more destruction of humans in the womb!


The whole thing is pompous self contradictory and impractical nonsense. Of course to those who like soundbites and the feel of such nice words it will appeal. But it is meaningless and irrelevant to real life.

5. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #22102 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm

Nope - I hate religion. However I am a Christian. And I am not a young earth creationist because the evidence seems overwhelmingly to point to an old earth and the bible says nothing about the age of the earth.

Thanks for asking - not quite sure what it has to do with the topic..

6. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #22040 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm

"stpetes demonstrates the carefully rehearsed indignation of the ignorant theist who has yet to actually read any of the arguments put forth by either side."

Having read all of Dawkins and McGarth's works on the subject I think the above post demonstrates just who is ignorant.

"Alister McGrath's recent piece criticizing both TGD and Dawkins was so free of substance that I actually felt embarrassed for him. Dawkins, on the other hand, goes to the trouble of presenting an argument--something McGrath has so far failed to do."

What argument is this? McGrath is a flea?! McGarth is building his career on my back? There is no evidence for God? Please - if this is what you call intellectual debate it is little wonder that the atheist cause is floundering so much.

"stpetes, if you want to contribute and be taken seriously, why not dismantle Dawkins's arguments with some incisive reasoning of your own?"

Been there. Done that. Got the Tshirt. see www.freechurch.org (Todays' Issues and the series on Dawkins). Also got the 'you are an idiot', 'how dare you disagree with our prophet', 'hang him for blasphemy' routine.

Seriously - I think there is a serious case to be made for atheism - but calling people names and then relying on your fans to complain about others calling you names is what is both pathetic and ridiculous.

By the way I think the following posts sum up the fundamentalism of some atheists "I totally agree, it is frustrating but just being right is not enough!"

7. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21960 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 1:43 am

Howzat - the Times only publishes short letters so I had to deal with the substance of Dawkins letter - a vicious and unwarranted attack on McGarth and his motives.

The meat of the issue? Is this the paragraph where Dawkins (speaking on behalf of all scientists) boasts about his own humility?! I did not see much substance there - just so many presuppostions and prejudged assumptions that it would take a book to reply! For what it's worth McGarth admits that there are many things he does not know. You will also find that there are many scientists who are also theists. Dawkins once again provides a false dichotomy.

8. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21948 by stpetes on February 12, 2007 at 1:04 am

Dear Richard,

Of course the disciples are going to love your post. But do you really think calling your Oxford colleagues 'fleas' is going to do anything to curb your reputation for arrogance? And you know as well as I do that your statement about McGarth building a career upon your back is just false. McGarth got his PhD in biology, and his theology professorship in Oxford, long before he wrote against your atheism. Maybe you think it is about the book sales. Perhaps it is but then who are you to judge McGarth on that? After all he was a very sucessfull author long before he wrote against you. And could not the same accusation be used against you - that you have made millions writing about a God whom you believe does not exist? You are surely entitled to argue your case without being entitled a money grabber - and McGrath and others are just as entitled to disagree with you in public, without being accused of seeking to build their careers upon you. I'm afraid such accusations just make you come across as self absorbed. You are not that important!

Anyway your letter deserved a response and I posted the following to The Times this morning. Doubtless it will get the usual dogs abuse (if it is allowed to stay on this Fan Club website) and doubtless you can and will dismiss it as yet another person seeking to ride on your coattails to get their name in the paper, or the rantings of some lunatic fundamentalist who just can't see THE Truth.

David

Dear Editor,


Richard Dawkins (Feb 12th) accuses his Oxford colleague Professor Alister McGrath of arrogance and of 'building a career' upon his back, whilst comparing him with a flea. Professor Dawkins should perhaps allow for the possibility that those of us who disagree with him do so because we actually disagree with him, rather than because we want to build careers on his back. McGrath built his career as a scientist and theologian long before he ever wrote about Dawkins. He is qualified to comment on the relationship between religion and science because not only is he a theology professor, he also has a PhD in biology. Dawkins on the other hand, whilst being a brilliant scientist, has no understanding of theology and covers for this by declaring that theology is not even an academic discipline. After thousands of years of theological reflection and philosophy along comes the prophet Dawkins and announces that there is no evidence for God. Perhaps he will forgive those of us who are not quite ready to ditch everything for such simplistic fundamentalist propositions.



It is clear that Dawkins is using his post as Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, not to promote science, but rather his own atheistic materialist philosophy. Using the language he does in his letter does not advance his cause and indeed makes him sound like a self-important and petulant fundamentalist whose only resort to those who disagree with him is mockery and accusation.

9. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20893 by stpetes on February 7, 2007 at 12:40 am

'no intellectual, no scholar, nonsense, total intellectual dishonesty, pompous ass' - I see that the standard of intellectual debate on this website continues to rise!

McGarth is a serious and recognised scholar - he has a PhD in biology as well as his theological and scholarly credentials. If you guys want to argue against him then can I suggest you deal with with points he is making and resist both the name calling and the ignorance (ie. get your facts right - he is not for example a YEC).

Ironically by responding as you do you are proving his main point - that TGD is written to bolster the faith of poorly informed atheists.

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

Comment #20644 by stpetes on February 5, 2007 at 11:17 am

Scottish Geologist -

Sorry for causing you offence. I did not realise that atheists could be so concerned about language - St Petes is what the Church is known as amongst the 'trendier' church goers in Dundee. And you will be disappointed to learn that there are quite a lot of them!

Yes - there are men who abuse women by taking bible verses out of context and using them as they want. In so doing they abuse the Bible as well. The fact still remains that in a largely patriarhcal culture the early Christian church liberated women and enabled them to be full members and key leaders within (the fact that certain roles were left for men should no more demean women than the fact that today there are certain jobs that a woman is better equipped to do).

The wider point is that the Bible liberates, wheras those who reject the Makers Instructions, whatever their good intentions, always end up creating an oppressive society.

11. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #19806 by stpetes on January 30, 2007 at 2:48 am

Benny Hinn is a charlatan and the best apologist for atheism there is. He should not receive a penny of tax rebate because his claims are fraudulent and demonstrably so. I write this as an Evangelical Christian who is appalled at how gullible people often are.

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

Comment #19618 by stpetes on January 28, 2007 at 11:46 pm

Fedler,

st petes is myself (David Robertson) - I logged in under another name because I was banned. I do not like doing this and will not continue to comment on this site because of the ban, but I did so in order to answer those who made constructive comments on this particular thread.

Scottishgeologist - for the reason given above I cannot enter into a debate with you here. And to be honest, until you mature and learn to communicate without swearing or being offensive, there would appear to be little point in arguing with you anyway. I am sure you will be free to yell, shout and swear on this site as much as you want. If you want real discussion I would suggest you go elsewhere.

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

Comment #19415 by stpetes on January 27, 2007 at 3:22 am

Fedler, Van Youngman and John Phillips,

- as I have been banned as a Troll (which seems to mean anyone who questions or upsets the atheist fundamentalists on this site - not difficult to do!) I feel it would be wrong of me to continue to discuss on this site. You would be welcome to post your comments on the Free Church website (www.freechurch.org and then go to 'Todays Issues - David Robertson' If you want to comment go to the MB and post under the relevant heading there- there is one for each of Dawkins chapters). Fedler has already done that and I have responded to him there.

The only additional thing I will say here is to John. The Bible liberates rather than condemns women, I have never said that only the good should count (although I would be very interested in how you know what is good) and of course Hitler substituted his own ideology for religion - that is precisely what atheists do.

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

Comment #19109 by stpetes on January 25, 2007 at 2:48 am

The latest article in the Dawkins series is now on line. http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/janb07.htm

Dawkins - The Good Book and the Moral Zeitgeist

In it we look at the Bible and morality - and some of the favourite atheist arguments against the Bible. Feel free to add your own comments and questions.



David Robertson

25 January 2007


Dear Dr Dawkins,

In chapter three you have already had a go at the Bible but now you really stick the boot in. The belief in the Bible as instruction or moral example "encourages a system of morals which any civilised modern person, whether religious or not, would find – I can put it no more gently – obnoxious". "Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it, as Bishop John Shelby Spong, in The Sins of Scripture, rightly observed."

I have studied the Bible for over 25 years. For 20 of those it has been my job to do so. I have tried to do so with an open mind and a desire to know what it really says. At times it has puzzled me, caused me to question and has presented me with seemingly insurmountable difficulties. I hope that you would grant me as a professional in this field of study, the same respect I grant you as a biologist. Your understanding of scripture is extreme in its condemnation and seems governed more by your atheism than it is by any knowledge or understanding of the text. Yet you prejudge the whole issue at the beginning of this chapter by again implying that those who do not accept your point of view are not civilised, moral or intelligent enough to understand the Bible. You will forgive me saying this but this is yet again another one of those Emperor has no clothes moments. The tailors in that story tell people that only those who are intelligent enough will see the 'invisible' clothes. Likewise you state that only those who see the Bible as immoral are intelligent and moral. There is almost nothing I can say to people with such presuppositions but let me at least try to help those who are inclined to accept at face value your distorted and sour grape picking version of the Bible.

In your attack on the Bible you mention Noah's ark, Pat Robertson, New Orleans, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Levites concubine in Judges, Abraham lying, the almost sacrifice of Isaac, Jephthah's daughter, the Golden Calf, Moses attacking the Midianites, all in the Old Testament. In the New your objections seem to be that Jesus was rude to his mother and had dodgy family values, and the doctrine of the atonement. In addition to this you try to dismiss the positive teachings in the Bible of 'do not kill' and 'love your neighbour' as actually racist, meaning 'do not kill Jews' and 'love only fellow Jews'. You go so far as to state that "Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs". It's all wonderful knock about stuff for your fans, equivalent to the kind of comedy that George Carlin, whom you cite, is famous for. However it is a long way from what the Bible actually says.

Firstly anyone who reads Bible in its context cannot take seriously the suggestion that Jesus only came for the Jews and that love your neighbour, only meant the Jews. The very parable that Jesus told to illustrate that truth was one which involved a non Jew. Your rewriting and rereading of these verses is out of context, dishonest and deceitful special pleading which says a whole lot more about your prejudgements than it does about the bible. You base much of your thinking here on what you call a 'remarkable paper' by John Hartung, an associate professor of anaesthesiology and anthropologist. This paper entitled "Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In- Group Morality," includes an acknowledgement of you and your wife and more disturbingly a sympathetic review of Kevin MacDonald's A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. It is all getting disturbingly close to the 'evolutionary' view of religion and Judaism that the Nazi academics and scientists taught. And it is a million miles away from what the Bible actually says.

Secondly Pat Robertson, New Orleans and the various twisted theologies of some exponents of Christianity have nothing to do with the teachings of the Scriptures which should be judged on their own merits.

Thirdly you need to learn the basic principles of reading the Bible. You must always read it in context – that includes historical, literary, theological and biblical context. To read out of context is to misread. Then you must recognise that much of the Bible is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words it is telling us what went on rather that what should have happened. In fact this is one of the things that helped convince me of the truth of the Bible. Most of the main characters, even the heros, come out quite badly. They are painted warts and all. If this was myth why would someone write about such things as David committing murder and adultery, or Abraham lying about his wife?

Atheists are fond of arguing against what they consider to be 'literal' interpretations of the Bible. Like some fundamentalists you consider those who are not literalists as just cowards. But it really does depend what you mean by 'literal'. When I am asked if I read the bible literally I can never answer it because I need to know first of all what the questioner means. If he means do I take every word at its literal meaning then the answer is no, of course not. When Jesus said I am the vine, he did not mean that he was green and produced literal grapes. To read any literature in such a way, never mind such an extensive collection of books as the bible, would be plain stupid and false to the book itself. The Bible has at least five different genres- prophecy, poetry, history, letter and law. On the other hand if by literal you mean 'at face value' then yes I do read the bible literally. You ask "by what criteria do you decide which passages are symbolic, which literal?". The answer – context, genre and common sense. I really do not expect to be dressed in white and playing a harp in heaven (aka the Book of Revelation) but I have no doubt that Jesus literally rose from the dead. It was not symbolic of anything, it was written not as poetry but as verifiable history, and it is a fact that is repeated several times. It is quite clear what the Bible means when it speaks about the resurrection. Mind you if you seriously believe that when Jesus taught the Old Testament refrain 'love your neighbour', he meant only Jews, then I guess you can make the bible say whatever you do or do not want it to say!

One important principle is that of progressive revelation. This is the idea that the Bible, written over a period of more than 1000 years progressively reveals God to us. Little by little the curtain is opened and the light comes in. Therefore some aspects of earlier revelation are superceded by the New Testament.

Another significant principle is one that you state yourself when trying to defend the horrific statements of such enlightened and liberal atheists as HG Wells and Thomas Huxley. The latter declared "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior of, of the white man." Yet in order to defend them you declare "It is a commonplace that good historians don't judge statements from past times by the standards of their own". Perhaps that would be a good motto for you to adopt to some parts of the Bible as well.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God; as such it is true, without error and communicates all that God wants it to. That does not mean it is without problems but I would like to suggest that if you read it bearing in mind the basic principles above then 90% of the problems you cite will disappear. However that leaves the other 10%. It would be foolish to deny that there are major difficulties within the Bible. There are parts of it that make me feel distinctly uncomfortable and that I struggle with. But who am I to sit in judgement upon the Bible? Not long after becoming a Christian there were parts in the Bible that greatly disturbed me. I read a book which purported to deal with most of those difficulties however it did not help much. But I made a decision that it was stupid and arrogant of me as a young Christian to think that I alone could understand the bible and to attempt to sit in judgement upon it. It was not that it was wrong to question but rather that I had to be patient, humble and thoughtful. After more than 25 years studying it I have come more and more to appreciate the truth, wisdom, beauty and relevance of the Bible. This is not because I have to, or I am paid to – in many ways it would have been so much easier to give in and to go with the flow, it would certainly have made for an easier life. But I could not in all intellectual honesty give up. As a result I have found the Bible to be more reliable and relevant than anything. I find it amazing, when I teach even parts that seem more obscure and diffcult, that it addresses the needs, desires and lifes of ordinary people living in the 21st century. I would venture a guess that many of the 'atheist' converts from religion are those who have never really drunk deep from the well of Scripture. For me, in the words of BB King 'the thrill has not gone'!

You clearly have difficulty with the atonement as well. "I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity. If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them?" Whilst I am grateful that you at least recognise, unlike some professing Christians, that the atonement is the central doctrine of Christianity, it is sad that you are obviously missing out on the best part of the whole Bible. The cross has always been a stumbling block both for the religious and those who consider themselves to be wise. Polly Toynbee, the Guardian columnist, was scathing about this when she reviewed The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. She vehemently declared that she did not need anyone to die for her sins. For most people the notion that we have done anything so bad as to deserve death is repellent. But that is because we do not have an adequate understanding of evil and sin. And we have no real awareness of the depths of depravity in our own hearts. Once you grasp that then the doctrine of atonement – the idea that the Son of God died in my place and paid the price for my sin is a notion that is wonderful. It's the best part of the whole Bible. What would be repellent is if Rousseau's reputed last words were true; he claimed that God would forgive him because 'c'est son metier' (that's his job). So no matter what we do or how we behave then God will forgive us. Such cheap forgiveness is not just nor biblical.

The most interesting and disturbing part of this chapter is the section headed The Moral Zeitgeist. Here you are expounding a fairly common belief that atheists hold. That things are getting better all the time. Humanity is evolving from a primitive morality to a generally improved moral consensus. This of course is highly questionable and the evidence you offer for such chronological (and indeed Western) snobbery is scanty. Is it really the case that the Moral Zeitgeist is improving in Britain and the US? Are women really being treated better? Has racism and prejudice been done away with? Is our current sex obcessed, materialistic and shallow society better than it was one hundred years ago? That is not immediately self-evident! I suspect that only a nice middle class Western moralist could be so confident and glib about the greatly improving moral situation with humanity. I had thought that such liberal utopianism had received a mortal blow after the First World War and was killed off after the Second. But apparently not. You are once again teaching that the human race is evolving to moral perfection and that the only thing that is preventing us from realising this is the evil of religion.

You cite as examples of the improved moral Zeitgeist increased female sufferage and a change in attitude to race. You mention that even Washington, Jefferson and other 'men of the Enlightenment' held slaves (curious that you are prepared to excuse this practice in these men because it was 250 years ago but you condemn in the Old Testament 2000 years ago). Most shocking of all you point out that H G Wells in his New Republic in answering the question as to how the New Republic would deal with the 'inferior races' such as the black, the yellow man etc stated, "Well, the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go". He made it quite clear what he meant – the extermination of inferior races. You state that this position would now be unacceptable in society and more astonishingly you claim that this is because of 'improved education and in particular, the increased understanding that each of us shares a common humanity with members of other races and with the other sex – both deeply unbiblical ideas that come from biological science, especially evolution". When I read that I had to stop and take a deep breath. Did he really write that? Does he really have the audacity to think that he can get away with such a big lie?! The Bible taught a long time ago (Genesis 1) that both men and women were made in the image of God. The Bible also taught that all human beings, of whatever race were descendants of Adam and that all were made in the image of God. To describe these ideas as unbiblical when they are foundational to the Bible is bad enough. But then to suggest that it is evolution which has lead us away from the evils of Wells et al is breathtaking. The Church was teaching at the end of the 19th century that all human beings were made in the image of God. Last year I visited a Black University in South Africa where one of the photos on the wall was of a Black South African who had come to study in Glasgow and returned as an ordained Presbyterian minister in the 19th century. It was not the Church nor the Bible that was teaching that 'inferior races' should be destroyed. In fact you cite Huxley's racism (Emancipation – Black and White – published in 1865) as typical of the Zeitgeist of the time. Yet Huxley was arguing against the Zeitgeist. Society, lead primarily by Christian activists and thinkers workinig on biblical principles, had come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. For example 20 years before Huxley in the 1840's my own church , St Peters, was holding anti-slavery meetings and acting as a focus for the anti-slavery movement. Huxley was arguing that this biblical morality was unscientific. He believed what he believed not because of the Zeitgeist but because of his science. It was such social Darwinistic evolutionary thinking which fed the manic utopianism of Wells and others. I am grateful that the Zeitgeist of atheistic evolutionary biologists has improved in the 20th century but please do not put us all in the same boat. Which brings me on nicely to the six pages you devote to Stalin and Hitler.

I can understand why Atheists want to dissociate themselves from the like of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. After all they were the leaders of the only officially atheistic states so far and, shall we say, that their human rights record was not exactly great. The only argument I have heard atheists use is that well really Stalin was not an atheist because he behaved unreasonably and unreasonable people cannot be atheists. It's the ultimate in circular arguments and there is no point in trying to break into the circle.

However Hitler is different. You want to cite Hitler as a Christian, although even you know that is going a bit far. As I already indicated this is one subject that I have studied extensively. The basic facts are as follows – Hitler was brought up as a Catholic; when he came to power he did so in a situation where the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church were still significant social forces within German society; he was quite happy to use the Christian churches and Christian symbols when he could; ironically it was those who taught as you do that religion should be privatised and that the Church should stay out of politics who provided the biggest reason for non-opposition to Hitler (thankfully men like Dietrch Bonhoeffer and others were prepared to ignore that advice and do what they could to resist evil). If we really want to know what Hitler thought then his actions and above all his private words are the most compelling evidence. And I am grateful to you for citing Hitler's Table Talk which tells us conclusively what Hitler thought about Christianity. "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity". Even more interesting is the following from Traudl Junge, Hitler's personal secretary "Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it's going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. 'Science isn't yet clear about the origins of humanity,' he once said. 'We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind." (Until the Final Hour –p108) That just about says it all.

You ask at the end of this chapter "Why would someone go to war for the sake of an absence of belief?" I assume by that you mean an absence of belief in God. The answer to your question is twofold. Firstly it could be that the reason people go to war is the absence of belief. If like Stalin or Hitler, you believe that there is no God to answer to, 'that might is right' and that power comes at the end of a gun, then you are much more likely to indulge your selfish genes and go to war to get what you want. The second answer to your question is in the quote above. Hitler clearly did not go to war because he believed in God or because he wanted to spread Christianity. He hated Christianity. On the other hand he did believe that religion was a virus (where have I heard that one before) and that the Jews especially were vermin who should be eradicated in order to better preserve the species. It was all perfectly logical, darwinian and godless. Perhaps the atheist zeitgeist has moved on. But meanwhile until it is proven otherwise, I would prefer to stick with the tried and tested morality of the Bible.

Yours etc

David

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

Comment #18235 by stpetes on January 19, 2007 at 4:49 am

Thanks Fedlar I appreciated your honesty. Nice to be back although I am afraid I will not be able to post anymore as I have been banned.

This is because on the onion spoof thread where one atheist pointed out that only Wombats would see it as anything other than a spoof – I pointed out that there were already a couple of atheists who were irate, having 'thought' it was real. To me the irony was delicious. 'The Brights' are not quite as switched on as I thought!

But obviously not to admin and others. (I have only posted a few posts on other threads but apparently it's just too disturbing for the wee lambs). So the fundamentalist atheists can stay sheltered behind their ridicule and their smug certitidue, lambasting and making fools of whoever they want, but they will never seriously engage with anyone. Because like all fundamentalists they just know that they are right. Anyone who responds to them or has 'a laugh' in the same way that they have a go at others, is automatically banned.

Obviously this 'oasis of clear thinking' site is quite happy to allow pages and pages of vitriol declaring how dumb religious people are and having a laugh at the more insane stupidities of some religious people. But dare anyone even suggest that there is some similarity with fundamentalist atheists and hey presto suddenly you are a troll. I'm afraid that my original suspicions about this site are correct – it is a propaganda tool for fundamentalist atheism which also acts as a therapeutic centre for some very angry atheists.

If Fedlar, Aussie and Ole were typical then the site would be a whole lot more peruasive. But I'm afraid that it appears that fundies atheists have no real desire to discuss or debate. Just to mock and to affirm one another in your own faith. I think the biblical phrase is 'the blind leading the blind' Enjoy the closet...