151. A force for good?

Comment #55277 by stevencarrwork on July 10, 2007 at 12:38 pm

So secular regimes killed a lot of people?

I would be the first to concede that Stalin would have killed far fewer people if he had been religious and had prayed to his non-existent god to strike his enemies dead.

152. A force for good?

Comment #55050 by stevencarrwork on July 9, 2007 at 9:57 pm

'God is not to me a particular "being" at all, but rather the power of Being itself. God is a supreme moral ideal to be reverenced for its value not for its controlling power.'

Valley is an atheist.

153. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33365 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2007 at 12:38 am

GORDON BROWN
Words of comfort for the distressed and bereaved? Sounds more like a self-interested and thinly-veiled threat to my ears.

CARR
Strange that the words of Jesus are so relevant to innocent victims killed by tragedy, and yet the religious just ignore whatever Jesus happens to say on the subject, even when it directly speaks to the situation.

Perhaps because they can see the lack of compassion shown and instinctively know that it would portray their Saviour in a bad light?

154. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33358 by stevencarrwork on April 20, 2007 at 12:12 am

I remember the wise words of Jesus when he was asked about innocent people killed in a horrible tragedy.

Luke 13:4-5 'Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'

When do atheists offer similar words of comfort for the distressed and bereaved?

Never. That shows you how morally bankrupt atheism is.

155. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30419 by stevencarrwork on April 8, 2007 at 3:05 am

KLINGHOFFER
For one thing, God gives objective definition to our ideas of right and wrong, crucial for civilization.

CARR
By definition, if moral judgements come from a being, then they are the subjective opinions of that being.

156. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #29990 by stevencarrwork on April 6, 2007 at 2:13 am

McGrath is going to call his book in America 'The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine.'

What is wrong with the guy? How come he never managed to work 'reductionist' into the title?

157. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #29989 by stevencarrwork on April 6, 2007 at 2:09 am

McGrath is now complaining he only had 1 day to prepare for this.

Does it really take a whole day for McGrath to read his own book to find something worthwhile to say?

158. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28351 by stevencarrwork on March 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm

CHESHIRE CAT
I think to attack the violence of the old testament is to misread its place in christian thought.

CARR
Judaism only has an Old Testament.

Does this mean that Christians concede that Dawkins has demolished other religions, like Judaism, but somehow their religion survived Dawkins criticisms?

159. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27435 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2007 at 2:48 pm

I like the blurb for 'The Dawkins Letters'.

'...so David wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins on his church website. This found its way onto Richard Dawkins' website, where it generated the largest response of any posting before or since.

It also generated many responses on Robertson's own church website, which were then removed, every single one, by the Free Church of Scotland'.

Of course, the blurb did not actually use that last paragraph, mainly because it was true.

160. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27434 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2007 at 2:45 pm

SCOTTISH GEOLOGIST
Note the pink unicorn...

CARR
Heresy! The Pink Unicorn is invisble.

It is fully invisible, and fully pink, just as Jesus was fully human and fully God. It is what theologians call a 'mystery'.

161. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27433 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2007 at 2:42 pm

DAVID ROBERTSON
'The Bible never says that intercessory prayer is always answered the way the person who makes the prayer wants"

THE BIBLE
John 14:13-14 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Of course, Robertson will simply deny this.

He denies anything that does not fit his beliefs.

He will even deny the Bible if it does not say what he believes.

This is the standard of people who write books attacking Dawkisns.

162. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27423 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2007 at 1:45 pm

deleted

163. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27422 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2007 at 1:45 pm

WEE FLEA
'who changed the tense of notes he had 'borrowed'

CARR
Most amusing, and another Christian double-standard.

The author of Luke took the Gospel of Mark and changed the tenses.

Of the 93 historic presents in the Markan verses that the author of Luke used, no less than 92 were changed by him.

If Picker is trash because he changed tenses, then Luke is even more trash.

Unless , of course, Robertson judges the Bible with totally different standards.

Which he does.

164. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27420 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2007 at 1:40 pm

WEE FLEA on March 13th, 2007 about Picker
'He was not a stenographer...'

CARR
It would appear that Robertson has now admitted that he was lying previously about Picker, as Robertson now concedes this point.

As for me 'attacking' , Junge, it was Junge herself who said that she regretted that she could only give a very vague and inaccurate account of what Hitler had said.

Rational debate with people like Robertson is impossible, just as rational debate with Holocaust-deniers is impossible. They simply deny whatever does not fit into their world view.

165. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27330 by stevencarrwork on March 24, 2007 at 4:24 am

STEWART
'In an earlier post I said something along the lines that nitpicking about who took notes when Hitler spoke wasn't the real point, ...'

CARR
The real point is Robertson's ability to deny what even Holocaust-deniers had to accept.

It is about Robertson's ability to evaluate evidence.

It is about Robertson's twisting of facts.

Picker was the first to be published. Robertson twists this into Picker published 'after the war' (as if such a book could be published during the war!)

It is about Robertson quoting a doctored version of Table Talk in his anti-Dawkins book and claiming it is a genuine quote from Hitler.

From 'German Studies Review 26/3 (2003)'

'Assuming any published version is a genuine copy of these notes, Picker's edition (especially where it agrees with Jochmann) carries the strongest claim to authenticity.

It contains the actual German, and was the first to be published... Picker had the involvement and auspices of a major university and Hitler historian....

Moreoever Picker was one of the actual stengographers (from 21 March 1942 to 2 August 1942) and thus transctibed many of the notes humself in the very prescence of Hitler, making him an eyewitness with access to the notebooks of his predecessor Heim, which he says he acquired directly, bypassing the editing of Bormann

Picker's second and third editions also contain testimonials to the text's accuracy and authenticity by fellow bunker officers, including Gerhard Engel and also a testimonial by historian Walter Mediger...

.... to demonstrate his personal knowledge he gives a detailed description of the bunker and meeting room, and who was present on Hitler's staff at that time.'

Which should we believe? The prestigious German Studies Review or David Robertson , a man who claims his source (Traudl Junge) is 'reliable', when Junge herself said on the next page that she had given a 'vague and inaccurate' account of what Hitler said.

Robertson says he believes on 'evidence'.

We know what Robertson thinks of evidence. It is to be denied whenever it suits him.

This is the standard to be expected from people who write anti-Dawkins books.

166. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27265 by stevencarrwork on March 23, 2007 at 4:47 pm

You just have to love Robertson rubbishing Picker, who was there, for writing after the second world war and being a 'secondary source' (although he was there!!)

I guess that makes the Gospels unattributable trash, what with them being anonymous and written 30 years afterwards, with no contemporary notes to verify them and by people who were not there.

Another Christian double-standard??

167. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27262 by stevencarrwork on March 23, 2007 at 4:43 pm

David Robertson, author of anti-Dawkins books, denies what even Holocaust deniers were forced to accept when on the witness stand.

Robertsom writes 'Picker was with Hitler for several meetings during a period of six months. His version of the 'table talk' is unattested, unverifiable, written after the Second World War (when he had money to be made from publishing a book) and at best can only be described as a secondary source.'

Perhaps Robertson has not read the trial of David Irvine, where even he had to accept that Picker was reliable.

Robertson writes about Traudl Junge ' As a source she is reliable and makes clear that Hitler had come to accept as probable the evolutionary view.'

In the very next page to where Robertson quote-mined Hitler claiming science was unsure of how man evolved, Junge herself wrote that she regretted that that she 'could give only a very vague and inaccurate account' of what Hitler had said.

Does the anti-Dawkinist Robertson have an ounce of decency in his body, or will he continue to maintain that black is white?

168. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26061 by stevencarrwork on March 16, 2007 at 11:44 am

Phaeonix is right about Plantinga.

His defense to the Problem of Evil is no more than a 'saving the appearances' type of defense, the sort of defense that could be used to defend the theory that the Sun goes around the Earth.

I have a blogpost at http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2005/11/problem-of-evil-and-saving-appearances.html which explains why

Plantinga's defense does not even work

http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2005/11/alvin-plantinga-and-problem-of-evil.html explains why

And http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/2005/09/god-omniscience-free-will-and.html is a cute short story which explains why Plantinga's views about what God can do literally make no sense.

169. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25979 by stevencarrwork on March 15, 2007 at 11:20 pm

David Robertson makes much of Traudl Junge's quote of Hitler, but Robertson quite forgets to tell the Christian readers of his anti-Dawkins book that Junge follows it up by saying that she regretted that she 'could give only a very vague and inaccurate account' of what Hitler had said.

170. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25832 by stevencarrwork on March 15, 2007 at 11:08 am

That is quite right. I should not have generalised to Christians. Bad me (:-

171. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25815 by stevencarrwork on March 15, 2007 at 9:55 am

CARR
"Is David Robertson going to defend the Word of God, when it says in Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me".

ROBERTSON gave a one word answer.
His answer was 'Yes.'


ROBERTSON also said that all sinful creatures deserve death. He wrote - '"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.'


Let us not forget Robertson's claim that deleting every discussion on his church's message board did not stifle discussion.

Such doubletalk gives you a measure of the calibre of Christians.

172. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25814 by stevencarrwork on March 15, 2007 at 9:46 am

It appears David Roberston continues to lie and distort.

I gave a web page of the transcript of David Irving's libel trail where he was forced to admit to opposing council that Picker took notes in 1942.

But Robertson denies what even David Irving had to accept under oath.

Robertson quotes Hitler as saying science was unsure about how humans evolved.

So?

Hitler's own words, as recorded by Picker was that he did not believe scientific accounts of human development from apes.

173. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25783 by stevencarrwork on March 15, 2007 at 5:42 am

WEE FLEA
As for the quote from Hitler's Table Talk – you are complaining to the wrong man. It is RD who uses that quote and several others. I was just citing him. But hey, why let facts get in the way of what you believe?

CARR
I have alredy pointed out on the Forum that Dawkins was quoting a doctored quote supposedly from Hitler.

The fact that you were 'just citing him' is no excuse for you using doctored quotes yourself.

But what else can we expect from a proven liar, who also lied about the fact that I *did* deal with the Junge quote you gave.

174. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25781 by stevencarrwork on March 15, 2007 at 5:37 am

WEE FREE
3) Your post on Hitler no 177 – I like the use of the word 'apparently' and your complete ignoring of the points made. I love the idea that there was someone taking notes of the note taker! And you believe that! The fact is that Picker took Heims notes and rewrote them in the third person after the second world war in order to publish them. We do not have the original notes, we do not have any signatures. Picker is interesting but not authoritative.

CARR
David Robertson is a shameless liar.

The quote I gave was from 1942 when Picker was one of the people recording Hitler's words.

Even David Irving admits this http://www.stormfront.org/solargeneral/library/www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day005.htm

I am shocked by Robertson's barefaced lies.

This is somebody who attacks Dawkins, and he will lie repeatedly to attack atheists.

175. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25775 by stevencarrwork on March 15, 2007 at 5:18 am

I see Wee Flea continues his denials about Hitler.

He is no better than a Holocaust denier.

And he continues to ignore his own church's claims that people are sent to Hell if they have not heard the Gospel, and his own claim that new-born babies deserve to die.

176. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25660 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 3:11 pm

AL MAC
3) To be able to explain something (for example, love) in physical terms is in no way to diminish it, so Wee Flea's dismissal of the notion of love as a chemical reaction is off the mark

CARR
Presumably Wee Flea believes God designed the human hormonal system, the thing that makes the heart beat faster when seeing the loved one.

I wonder why God bothered when his believers decry the effects of all these rather powerful chemicals that they claim their God designed.

Al Mac is quite right that the main features of Stalin and Hitler were their nutcasery. I already pointed out that Hitler believed the Moon only got its present orbit 10,000 years ago, in a catastrophe which wiped out an ancient glorious civilisation.

177. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25584 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 7:16 am

Still more of what the Free Church of Scotland teaches.

Remember . they closed down their message board because they did not want people to have the wrong idea about the church :-

Q. 60. Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?

A. They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved......

178. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25583 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 7:14 am

More on what David's church requires him to believe and preach :-

Q. 17. How did God create man?

A. After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man.....

What rubbish David Robertson believes!

179. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25582 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 7:13 am

Here is what the Free Church teaches.

Q. 13. What hath God especially decreed concerning angels and men?

A. God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof: and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleaseth), hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.

According to David Robertson's church, God has foreordained some people to wrath.....

People don't go to Hell because, of what they did.

They go to Hell because God pre-ordained that that was what would happen to them.

180. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25579 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 7:00 am

WEE FREE
'Henry Picker took notes on Hitler's conversations for a period of six months in 1942. He was not a stenographer, the original notes are not available and we have no signed records.

CARR
Picker certainly was a note-taker, and Hitler himself apparently would sometimes look over the notes and say there were accurate.

Notes are available in the Adolf Hitler Collection at the US Library of Congress. Apparently, Safe 5 Item 8 contains notes which correspond to Picker's own notes.

So Picker's reliability is well-attested.

But not anything from Martin Bormann.

Hitler certainly was against Christianity, but he was a fervent believer in God, and doubted very much that mankind had evolved from lower animals.

181. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25574 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 6:46 am

WEE FLEA
'When he was given the truth he cannot find it in himself to admit that he was wrong and persists in trying to suggest that the Free Church MB closed down in order to stifle discussion. '

CARR
The Free Church of Scotland closed down its message board, and didn't realise that that would stifle discussion?????

182. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25562 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 5:48 am

David Robertson's own words reveal him as a man who will not listen to his conscience if it contradicts his religion '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.'

Of course, he now is arrogant enough to think that he can judge the Bible and call it 'moral'.

183. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25551 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 4:32 am

Stewart is right that people can read the Bible and still not have any idea about such basic stuff as Hell.

As Richard Dawkins said, theology is not a subject which leads to knowledge.

184. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25535 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 2:59 am

ROBERTSON
1) People do not go to hell because of their lack of belief. The dead are judged according to what they have done.

THE WORD OF GOD
Psalm 51:5 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.'

What have new born babies ever done?

What did Gandhi ever do to deserve Hell?

185. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25534 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 2:53 am

More of Robertson's rewriting of history.

http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/janb07.htm

About Hitler 'On the other hand he did believe that religion was a virus (where have I heard that one before)....'

Where did Hitler claim that religion was a virus?

186. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25527 by stevencarrwork on March 14, 2007 at 2:18 am

I see Robertson is trying to rewrite history.

Like Holocaust-deniers, he simply denies that Hitler said what he did, and claims Martin Borman is more trustworthy than one of the actual stenographers , whose work was checked by a Professor of German History.

Picker was one of the actual stenographers, and got Heim's notes directly, before Bormann changed them. Picker's version was also checked by bunker officers.

Now Robertson is trying to rewrite the fact that he quoted a doctored version of Tabletalk, and claims he never quoted from it.


I quote Robertson's own words '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”'

That was from http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/janb07.htm

Now he simply denies ever quoting it.

Although he uses doctored quotes from a version that he himself admits was doctored by Genoud.

He claimed new born babies deserve to die, and now claims that that merely means that they will die, because the Bible says so, although he knows perfectly well that the Bible claims not all people will die.

All he has done is prove that the Bible contradicts itself.

Rational discussion is pointless with such a man.

Robertson simply denies reality. All that can be done is expose his beliefs to the oxygen of publicity.

Hitler designed Cathedrals, and Robertson claims that means nothing.....

187. The Archbishop whose words came from same hymnsheet as a Marxist

Comment #25097 by stevencarrwork on March 10, 2007 at 5:33 am

'Somehow many of you do forget that marxism is an atheist ideology and that Eagleton is an atheist as well.'

Where does Eagleton say he does not believe in God?

The Archbishop does definitely believe in God and also in Tom Lehrer 'plagiarise, plagiarise, let no one's work evade your eyes'.

188. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25096 by stevencarrwork on March 10, 2007 at 5:13 am

Incidentally, Hitler's Table Talk has between pages 380 and 381 , some pictures, one of which is 'Hitlers Entwurf fuer einen Dom in Linz'

Translated , Hitler's design for a Cathedral in Linz.

I guess Hitler believed in God enough to turn his hand to designing new Cathedrals.

189. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25071 by stevencarrwork on March 10, 2007 at 2:31 am

CARR
"I like David's claim that he rejects all science that he does not like."

WEE FLEA
I'm sure you do. However not only do you offer unattributable quotes about Hitler but now you quote me as saying things that I did not. I have never claimed that I reject science I do not like. That would be really stupid.

CARR
Axtually , you will say anything.

If you want to attack atheists in one way, you will say : http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/feb07.htm
'It would be so easy and such a relief in some ways to believe that once I died that was it. '

But if you want to attack atheists in a different way, you will say 'Thankfully I can offer her eternal life for her child. What can you offer? Oh yes, a bleak, cold meaningless universe which is eventually itself going to be wiped out.'

So David can say (whenever it suits him) that it is a relief that death is the end, and he can say (whenever it suits him) that it is not a comfort that death is the end.

And he can say it is atheists who present the science that the universe is going to be 'wiped out' (whatever that means).


And then he can turn around and say that he never rejects science.....

No wonder he thinks nothing of trying to weasel his way out of his Biblical claim that new-borm babies are sinful.

He will happily weasel his way out of anything he says.

190. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25064 by stevencarrwork on March 10, 2007 at 1:39 am

I see Wee Flea still needs lessons on his Bible, as he is running away from the Biblical claim that babies deserve to die.

Such weasel words from somebod who claims to stand for truth.

CARR
Is David Robertson going to defend the Word of God, when it says in Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me".


"Does he really believe that new born babies deserve to die, because they are sinful, just like the Bible claims they are?"

WEE FLEA
No. The Bible claims that all human beings are born to die. I guess the empirical evidence for that is quite strong!

CARR
Note the utter lack of Biblical quotes for his lies about what the Bible says.

The Bible claims that new born babies are sinful, and deserve to die, but never claims that all people will die (did Elijah or Enoch die)

1 Thessalonians 4:15 - According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.'

Wee Flea is right that the empirical evidence against the Bible is strong. Paul, and everybody he assured would not die, are now all brown bread.

The Biblical authors expected the end of the world soon (1 John 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour).

But the New Testament authors never claim all people will die.

As for his allegations that my quotes about Hitler are unatrributable, I can only guess he is resorting to desperation.

But I am willing to rub his nose in Hitler's belief in God, any time he likes.


For I have the original German version of Hitler's Tischgespraeche, written by the actual stenographer - Henry Picker.

It is Robertson whose quote came from a doctored English version of a French hoax version, doctored by a certain Francois Genoud, who also hawked around a forged 'Hitler's Last Testament'.

His quote of Hitler has Hitler claiming that science is unclear about how humans evolved, but you will notice that Hitler never claims that he agrees with what science said.

He did not.

Hitler believed humans were a special creation.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche

'Man braucht nur durch ein Teleskop oder durch ein Mikroskop zu sehen: Da erkennt man, dass der Mensch die Faehigkeit hat, diese Gesetze zu begreifen.

Da muss man aber doch demuetig werden. Wird diese Schoepferkraft mt einem Fetisch identifiziert, dann bricht die Gottesvorstellung zusammen, wenn der Fetsich versagt.


Man has only to look through a telescope or a microscope: Man then recognises, that mankind has the capability to comprehend these laws.


But man must be humble.

If this creative power is identified with an idol, then the picture of God will collapse, once the idol fails.

And from page 127 of Picker's edition of 1996 (copyright Verlag Ullstein GmbH) .., an entry for the night of 25-26 February 1942


'From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for the night of the 25th to 26th 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'


My translation runs as follows 'A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)'


And on the next page, Hitler reveals his belief in the Biblical account of the Flood 'Gleichzeitig treffen wir in allen Ueberlieferungen die Erzaehlungen von einen Himmelsturz'.

'At the same time we find in all that has come to us the stories of a fall from Heaven'

Hitler goes on to say that he can only explain it by saying that there must have been some sort of natural catastrophe. He thinks that perhaps the Moon shattered about 10,000 years ago and so the Moon came to be in its present orbit.


And this is the man that Robertson says believed science, when Hitler's own words say that he did not believe science had any clear picture of how man was supposed to have evolved.


Hitler, of course, was against the Roman Catholic Church (He called Transubstantions, madness).

If that makes him a non-Christian then many members of the Free Church are not Christians.

The fact remains that the Free Church of Scotland closed down the message board in its entirety to stifle discussion.

191. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24973 by stevencarrwork on March 9, 2007 at 2:48 pm

WEE FLEA
How sad. If you were married I could imagine you saying to Mrs Kaiser " Yes dear, you know that I love you but you also know that this 'love' is just a chemical reaction. It could just go bad, it could change and there is nothing I can do about it – that's chemistry. "

CARR
Chemical reactions can 'go bad'?

More sophisticated thinking from believers in God....

David , of course, thinks he can just choose whether or not to love somebody.

And tomorrow, he can choose not to love them.

A fine basis for a relationship that is.

If David had any soul in his heart, he would know that you cannot help being in love.

But he belongs to a religion where his God commanded people to love Him of their own free will, so you must expect His followers to be a little confused.

'Love me freely. That is an order'.

192. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24935 by stevencarrwork on March 9, 2007 at 11:12 am

David invited people on to his message board to discuss his ideas.

Quite a few atheists did so.

As a result, the whole of the message board has been closed down. I quote 'Increasingly, the message board was reflecting attitudes and discussions that the Committee feels are unrepresentative of the church, unhelpful, and distracting.'

David's church threw every single atheist off the message board by closing down the whole thing, just because David's church did not like the discussions.

So much for the 'Free' church.

193. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24933 by stevencarrwork on March 9, 2007 at 11:07 am

I see David is now denying that he preaches that babies deserve death.

How can he promise the baby eternal life? Hasm't he read the Bible?

Is David Robertson going to defend the Word of God, when it says in Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Does he really believe that new born babies deserve to die, because they are sinful, just like the Bible claims they are?

I notice his silence when challenged to defend the Bible.

Did any of the Muslims babies who perished in the tsunami of 26/12/2004 go to Heaven, when none had been baptised, and all were sinful (according to the Bible which claims no-one is righteous)

WEE FLEA
I have read all the main biographies of history, I studied him for my MA and I have given the evidence that Hitler was an evolutionist who did not accept that there was a God and that Christianity was along with Judaism the worst thing ever to happen to mankind.

CARR
Is that where you quote a doctored version of Hitler's words, words not in the original German version?

I refer you to the real words of Hitler, where he denied that man had evolved from other animals :-

1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'


I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Perhaps David can give us a translation?

What with him having studied Hitler, and all that?

Perhaps David would like some more of Hitler's words :-

State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."

"And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image."


I like David's claim that he rejects all science that he does not like.

If science says the universe will die a cold wasteland , thanks to entropy, then David says atheists can have their science, he will stick with his comforting beliefs.

194. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24658 by stevencarrwork on March 7, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Just to follow up my last point, is David Robertson going to defend the Word of God, when it says in Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Does he really believe that new born babies deserve to die, because they are sinful, just like the Bible claims they are?

195. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24657 by stevencarrwork on March 7, 2007 at 11:11 pm

WEE FLEA
"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."

CARR
This Christian attitude is repellent.

And David does not believe in it.

If he did, tell him to go to a maternity ward, go to a woman who has recently given birth, and tell her to her face that her child deserves to die.

But David does not believe what he says, so he will never do that.

196. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24654 by stevencarrwork on March 7, 2007 at 10:52 pm

VERONICA writes
'Matthew and Luke are incoherent ramblers about Jesus, miracles and other supernatural stuff that just beggars belief. Carroll says that Mark is the only one, apart from Judas, who really understood Jesus.'

CARR
You can find plenty of incoherent rambling in Mark

'And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

Doctors have a word for people whose conversation jumps from one unrelated topic to another, simply because they say a word and then that words sets off a disconnected traing of thought.

But 'rambling' is a pretty good word for a layman to use.

'Everyone will be salted with fire'. What on earth does that mean?

I leave you with the words of Jesus - 'Have salt in yourselves'.

There is not a day goes by, when I am not inspired by the profound message of the Greatest Teacher who ever lived.

How do atheists make it through the day without the constant reminders to have salt in themselves that Christians have?

197. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23843 by stevencarrwork on March 3, 2007 at 6:58 am

Presumably Steinfels thinks that sophisticated theologians like Alvin Plantinga put up arguments that atheists cannot refute.

But the Dawkins web site posts all of this stuff.

How many Christian web sites post unedited, full transscripts of atheist writings?

198. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23842 by stevencarrwork on March 3, 2007 at 6:56 am

'"The most disappointing feature of 'The God Delusion,' " Mr. Orr wrote, "is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology" and "no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions."'


Isn't this a lie?

199. The return of God?

Comment #23840 by stevencarrwork on March 3, 2007 at 6:54 am

When will William Lane Craig debate Jeffery Jay Lowder of Doug Krueger of the Internet Infidels?

He has been ducking them for years.

200. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23686 by stevencarrwork on March 2, 2007 at 4:39 am

Will S. is quite correct that the Plantinga review is one of the rare reviews which try to deal with the arguments, rather than indulge in name-calling and claims that Dawkins has not read people like Plantinga.

Well, atheists *have* read people like Alvin Plantinga.

And he is supposed to be the best. He is supposed to have revolutionised ( or alvanised) arguments for God.

Just read his review and see what the best anti-Dawkins arguments actually are.