No Name 09/12/11:
In spite of us being force fed
religion the numbers attending churches, and the general
disinterest, or more accurately loathing of religion is saying it
all, apart from the elderly, the interest is waning at a rapid rate
year on year, most noticeable is the figure for the younger age
groups, so all in all we need not worry, the churches are imploding,
and they do not need much help to put themselves out of business,
just sit back and watch the inevitable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Name 08/12/11:
I am a 14 year old ex-catholic
and have experienced first hand the indoctrination this group is
fighting against, and I firmly believe that "RE" should be replaced
with some other method of teaching religious tolerance not religion
as fact. having attended a catholic primary school and am currently
attending a faith school I can say that children and teenagers are
bombarded with religion including being forced to take part in
masses and religious ceremonies.
To all of you who say that re classes just inform about religion
another non-theist in my class actually received a bad grade (which
almost led to him being put on a behavioural report) when his
parents met with her she said the reason was and I quote "making
atheist comments at the back of the class"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary 27/11/11:
As usual I see Christians
looking into the past to support their argument. May I say that
hundreds of years ago when slavery was abolished, the first hospital
was opened etc man had little knowledge of the world he lived in, so
of course people believed all the nonsense. These days we have so
much knowledge and it is clear to me that our children would be
better served with a thorough clean education free from religious
interference so that the day comes sooner when we go full circle and
those that believe in god will be seen quite rightly as being crazy,
just as atheists were seen as recently as the 19th century. I have
no doubt that that day will come and I congratulate all involved
with NOTORI for helping that day come sooner, I only wish we could
be around to witness it!
This is a subject I am so passionate about and would be happy to
help spread the word in any way I can.
Gary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name, 18/11/11:
I
feel there is confusion between indoctrination and education. Your
Agency seems to be against just about everything anyone might choose
to believe. In your open mindedness you seem so closed. How sad to
be so intolerant of others. There is so much good that has come out
of the Christian Church in this country. The first hospitals were
run by the church, the first schools also. The abolition of slavery
arose through a group of Bible believers as did prison reform. In my
own town, Street Pastors, Christians in action get out on the
streets whatever the weather at the week end to care for clubbers -
not to preach, but to offer flip flops and water! The homeless are
cared for by Christians as are those with pregnancy crisis/loss.
Bible believers enrich our lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Lawrence, Notori
17/11/11: In reply to {No name 16/11/11}
“Most people love to see children with a
basic knowledge of Christianity and adore nativity school plays.”
The rights and wrongs of the inclusion of RE in the school
curriculum is debatable, with many arguments for and against:
enforced Christian worship is not, it is just plain wrong!
“Why is only Christianity depicted and not
other religions on your home page.”Only
Christianity is allowed to sit in the House of Lords to represent
the Christian God, and compulsory worship at school is specific to
the Christian God and Jesus.
“People have the choice and the Christian
tolerant way has been instilled in our country.”
The introduction of Christianity into Europe was anything but a
choice or tolerant, it was violent and ruthless; our ancestors had
to accept, believe and openly worship, or perish in the most
horrific of fashions at the hands of the Church. Today we do have a
choice, or do we? Children cannot choice not to worship at school;
they have to, by law!
“As families split and violence increases,
it increases with the moving away from churches, not towards the
churches.” Are you suggesting
that family splits and violence are to be found only among
non-religious people and never among religious people; and
non-religiosity is to take the full blame for such events?
“I think Notori should check historical
details thoroughly”.
Tacitus’ work is extremely thought
provoking with regards to the history of the Jewish people, and the
Christians of the era. Being born just twenty-six years after the
supposed earth shattering events of the crucifixion he would have
had access to the writings of the time. He would have been able to
talk to people who lived during this reported major event and had
witnessed it. Tacitus should have written about the crucifixion.
However, the fact is that in his complete extensive works, most of
which are still available to us today, the Christians get just one
tiny mention when he covers the great fire of Rome in his Annals of
62 to 65 CE. In this work he states that Nero is reported to have
blamed the burning of Rome on a group called Christians. For his account of Tiberius (book four: 23
to 28 CE and book five: 29 to 31 CE), when the crucifixion is
supposed to have happened and the Christian movement is supposed to
have got under way, he makes no mention of the event, or Jesus or
the Christians.
So; what did Tacitus write in the Annals
of 62 to 65 CE with reference to the burning of Rome?
[15.44] But all human efforts, all the
lavish gifts of the Emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did
not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result
of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero
fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a
class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the
populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the
extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of
our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous
superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only
in Judah, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where
all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find
their centre and become popular.
We need to consider exactly what has been
written here, and when it was written. We have to
split this passage into two sections:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report,
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on
a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the
populace.”
This part relates what happened in 64 CE
and only claims that in 64 CE a group of people called Christians
existed; this does not confirm that what they believed was factual,
nor does it confirm whether the group concerned considered their
faith to be allegorical or literal, they could have been Gnostic
Christians!
“Christus, from whom the name had its
origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at
the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most
mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke
out not only in Judah, the first source of the evil, but even in
Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the
world find their centre and become popular.”
This section is purely Tacitus’ take on
who the Christians were. But Tacitus writes this work circa
100 CE which is some thirty-six years later, and during the
period of the post 70 CE Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and
Acts stories. So Tacitus’ take on who the Christians were, is
possibly, and most likely, tainted with the resulting
evolution of Christianity from an allegorical concept to a literal
concept by Rome-based Jewish converts to Christianity. A process
that neither Nero, nor the group called Christians in 64 CE, have
yet been exposed to. Furthermore, Tacitus may have been acquainted
with the literal version of the belief and completely unaware
that an allegorical version/versions had ever existed. In short,
this passage does not confirm Nero’s Christians believed in a
physical Jesus, it only confirms that Tacitus, writing circa
100 CE, believes they did.
Tacitus’ knowledge of the Jesus story from
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts is however only partial and very
incomplete. It is probably merely hearsay knowledge since he only
uses the term “Christus”, which simply refers to the character
prophesied from the Old Testament, ‘the messiah’ or ‘chosen one’ or
‘anointed one’ and not the actual name of the chosen one as per
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. Further, when Tacitus tackles
the history of the Jews by era in his work “The Histories”, for
Judah during the reign of Tiberius he writes:
“ At Herod's death, without waiting for
the imperial decision, a certain Simon usurped the title of King. He
was dealt with by the governor of
Syria, Quintilius Varus, while the Jews
were disciplined and divided up into three kingdoms ruled by Herod's
sons. In Tiberius' reign all was quiet. Then, rather than put
up a statue of Gaius Caesar in the temple as they had been ordered,
the Jews flew to arms, though the rebellion came to nothing owing to
the assassination of the Emperor.”
So, all quiet in Judah in the reign of
Tiberius then, no earth shattering event worth any mention occurred!
This displays no knowledge of the account of the sky turning black
for three hours over the entire country, accompanied by violent
storms and earthquakes; events attributed to the belief of divine
retribution by a God, following the execution of his son by Pontius
Pilate. So in conclusion, the first entry by Tacitus referencing
Nero only confirms the existence of a group called Christians in
Rome circa 64 CE, not the existence of a physical person called Jesus of
Nazareth in Judah circa 1 to 30 CE.
With regard to Suetonius and his ‘Lives of
the twelve Caesars’, a history circa 121 CE. In his chapter on
Claudius, Suetonius makes the following entry:
“…since the Jews were continually making
disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from
Rome.”
Suetonius dates the chapters which contain
this passage as 800 AUC, meaning 800 years since the formation of
Rome in 753 BCE; this equals 47 CE. Suetonius therefore dates this passage to
47 CE or just after. It appears in a passage which covers decisions
made by Claudius relating to several ethnic and religious groups
including the Druids of Britain, the Gauls, the people from
Ilium, German ambassadors and the
Eleusiian mysteries of Attica. In the passage above, it is the Jews
who are expelled from Rome because they strongly disagree with a notion being communicated that the
Old Testament messiah has already visited the world. This is an
argument that bandy back and forth in the Jewish world since the
conception of ‘a Messiah to come’ was first written down in the
Hebrew texts of 600 BCE. Once again, the name of the messiah is
absent and the passage only confirms the existence of the believers,
not the physical existence of the character they believe in. Nor
does the passage confirm the view of the believers as to whether
they consider the character allegorical or literal; the passage
reveals nothing of the Jesus version from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
and Acts. When Suetonius covers the life of Nero he makes the
following observation:
“In his reign many abuses were severely
punished and repressed, and as many new laws were instituted; a
limit was set upon spending; public banquets were reduced; the sale
of cooked food in taverns was forbidden, except for vegetables and
greens, while formerly every kind of food was available; punishment
was inflicted on the Christians, a set of men adhering to a novel
and mischievous superstition; he put a stop to the wild activities
of the charioteers, who for a long time had assumed the right of
ranging at large and cheating and robbing for amusement; the actors
and their companies were banished.”
While this passage can be seen as
corroboration of the passage from Tacitus regarding Nero blaming the
fire of Rome on a sect called Christians, we also have to consider the order of
authorship. The events mentioned are set in 66 CE, Tacitus wrote
circa 100 CE and Suetonius writes in 121 CE. Suetonius could be
using Tacitus as his source material, or Tacitus and Suetonius could
both be using the same earlier source material; in these instances,
the Suetonius passage is not corroborative, but merely a restatement
of the same assertion. Tacitus and Suetonius could be using
different source material which would move the statements towards
the corroborative realm. However, even if the Tacitus and Suetonius
accounts are corroborative and the events of the persecution are
factual, it still only confirms no more than the presence of a group
called Christians in Rome circa 66 CE. Suetonius dates the Christian persecutions by Nero as 819
AUC, which is 66 CE or just after.
It has to be pointed out that: if writings
which confirm the existence of Christians, also confirm by default
the existence of Jesus Christ; then it follows that writings which
confirm the existence of Mithraites also confirms the existence of
Mithra, and now we have positively confirmed the existence of two
Gods, at least! Unless of course: we are only to apply credence to
the writings which mention Christians and apply no credence at all
to all other works which mention followers of other Gods?
It is a fact, that there are
no contemporary, corroborative writings about the
Jesus Character from the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John;
there are only non contemporary and non corroborative writings about
Christians.
So; in response to:
“I think Notori should check historical
details thoroughly.” Historical
details checked and confirmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 16/11/11:
Seutonius, AD 120, referred to
the expulsion of Jews from Rome 'by the instigation of Chrestus' and
while Claudius was Emperor (AD 41-54). Many see Chrestus as a
variant spelling of Christ. Even if mistaken in believing Jesus was
still alive, it shows his belief that Jesus existed who led a band
of dissident Jews.
Tacitus, AD 115 and 117, mentions Christ by name, he wrote of early
Christian origins in Judea and the execution of Christ under the
instructions of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. To dispel
rumour, Nero substituted as culprits and gave extreme punishment to
people known as Christians, who were notorious. The originator of
that name, Christus had been executed when Tiberious was emperor by
order of the procurator Pontius Pilate. The 'deadly cult' though
checked for a time was now breaking out again not only in Judea but
Rome. (Tacitus, Annals XV, 44).
I think Notori should check historical details thoroughly.
Most people love to see children with a basic knowledge of
Christianity and adore nativity school plays.
Why is only Christianity depicted and not other religions on your
home page.
People have the choice and the Christian tolerant way has been
instilled in our country.
As families split and violence increases,
it increases with the moving away from churches, not towards the
churches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 17/10/11:
Andy 04/04/11 writes:
"Surely you are just teaching children Atheism." This is a
typical uninformed comment that I hear from religious apologists all
the time. No responsible atheist ever suggests that children be
indoctrination with atheism (please note that atheism has a lower
case 'a'). There is nothing on this web site that advocates teaching
atheism either.
Atheism isn't something you 'teach', it's a personal position
arrived at through critical evaluation of the facts (or in the case
of religion, the complete lack of any facts to support the existence
of supernatural entities, other than blind faith).
Critical thinking skills are what we should be helping children to
develop and then they can make their own minds up about what is fact
and fiction in this world. If anyone wants to argue against teaching
children the skills that enable them to question and evaluate the
information that is taught to them, then you really need to consider
your own motives and why you would prefer them to be unquestioningly
spoon-fed with the man-made fantasy stories of various religions.
In addition, I hear many people say that we should teach comparative
religion to children. For me, this is the equivalent of presenting a
selection of different falsehoods to children and asking them to
choose which one they prefer to believe.
Andy also writes: "I will continue to fervently follow Jesus, He
has never let me down and never will."
Jesus can't let you down because that concept only exists in your
head -- it's entirely up to you whether you think your invisible
friend has let you down or not. Let's keep that concept there in
your head and don't insist that it is taught to children as some
sort of reality.
Mark
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy 04/04/11:
I think this is an
impossibility. Surely you are just teaching children Atheism. You
would like to see ALL Schools indoctrinate children in Atheism. I
will continue to fervently follow Jesus, He has never let me down
and never will. God Bless you ALL. Andy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine 11/03/11:
I am completely with you on
this - I have had the experience of the apartheid system used in
Northern Ireland to segregate the children from birth into
Protestants and Catholics as I grew up in the 70's and 80's. Schools
became (and still are) recruiting factories for terrorists, taking
full advantage of the exploitation of young, gullible minds -minds
that have been made weak by constantly reinforcing that it is good
'not to question', good to 'believe' and to 'accept authority'. Very
dangerous stuff. Thankfully there are now many integrated schools
that my children can attend. However I would still prefer religion
to be removed completely for all aspects of public life - when is it
going to be recognised as the male power structure that it so
clearly is. if the bible gave the power to women, how many men would
believe it? - not many in Northern Ireland anyway.
when ever I get the opportunity to comment of the 'peace process' -
I always make the case for the complete removal of religion from the
education system -it should be kept a private activity.
I wish you good luck with you efforts,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian 09/03/11:
Suggested addition to Article 9
of the Human Rights Act:
-: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion :-
"Everyone has the right to refuse to take part in religious
activities, to refuse to wear or display any kind of religious
symbol or item of clothing, and to refuse to submit to preaching,
enforced learning of religious texts, chanting, singing, recital or
other forms of indoctrination. No person of any age shall be
penalized, ostracised or discriminated against in respect of their
refusal to engage in religious activities of any kind."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 09/03/11:
Very best wishes for success
with this initiative. I taught in an independent private school for
30 years and was astonished by the attitudes of many staff. There
were evangelicals, even creationists. When I challenged them,
especially the absurdity of creationism, in private discussions, I
was reported to the Head and it was me that was admonished. Such is
the entrenched acceptance of religious belief systems in education
that any questioning is condemned - and this in a leading
educational institution! Of especial interest was the immediately
activated sense of victimisation on the part of those whose beliefs
were scrutinised.
Good luck
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 09/03/11:
I prefer to believe that
everything in the Universe exists as a result of natural processes.
That to me makes perfect sense.
Magical cryptic beings with supernatural powers seems less likely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 09/03/11:
Just found this excellent much
needed site. Wouldn't disagree with a word of it.
I haven't read AC yet or attended one of the presentations but I
have a suggestion, the list of presentations already given shows
that so far you are very much preaching to the converted. You need
to go out there and deliver these talks to the general public,
especially to educators and even schools. Trouble is (I expect) you
won't get your foot in the door unless your profile is a lot higher.
As other commenters have said, a Facebook page would be a start.
Other types of social networking and new media would be useful too.
There's a lot you can do before you actually have to spend money.
We'll do our bit, by word of mouth (good that you have such a
memorable URL, though I worry that once you start becoming a threat
to the religious they'll make play with it, renaming you "notorious"
or something).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 09/03/11:
Great site, it'd be nice if it
had a little more exposure though, although this might be difficult
for people who concur with you. I myself have been actively
discouraged from even bringing up this subject (and similar) amongst
friends, and even more so with the "faithful" in my family. I just
get accused of preaching! Maybe a Facebook page would attract some
interest (I did search unsuccessfully, so if there is one already
don't shoot me). Keep up the good work!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 18/02/11:
Your leaflet and website don’t
seen very tolerant of Christianity, your website talks about
religious tolerance yet you attack Christianity directly, using an
image of a priest and Bible to influence and appeal to the reader.
If you don’t want religion taught in schools that’s one thing, talk
about that, but your leaflet and website talk specifically about
Christianity. There are Muslim schools which openly preach hated,
and Jewish school as well as other faith schools.
It’s clear this is an anti Christianity initiative rather than an
anti religious initiative. I would say you don’t practice what you
preach!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Thorpe 01/06/10:
A) Steuart Campbell has been criticised more than once in the
Freethinker for asserting that there is plenty of contemporary
evidence for the existence of JC - but he never quotes an
unequivocal source - he just refers you to his book! As you say -
there simply isn't any.
B) In your article Why 70 CE? , you refer to Pontius Pilate as a
proconsul. Only senatorial provinces were governed by proconsuls at
this time. Judea was attached to the imperial province of Syria and
was governed by a prefect of praetorian rank, i.e. had power of life
and death. The Prefect was subordinate to the imperial legate of
Syria.
"Christus, from
whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during
the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators,
Pontius Pilatus.."
(From
your article The Literalists)
The fact that Tacitus refers to
Pilate as procurator, the term used after the reign of Tiberius for
governors of Pilate's level (small province attached to a larger
one, in this case Syria), rather than as prefect, indicates further
that he was quoting what he had heard or read in his own day, rather
than material taken from imperial archives, supposing, of course,
that such a piffling affair, if it happened, was ever recorded.
Technically, Syria was one of the provinces ruled by the Emperor's
nominee, legatus Augusti pro praetore (legatus Augusti is
normally rendered as imperial legate, and the pro praetore bit means
he had the power to command troops, etc), while the prefect was the
legate's deputy in the lesser province.
Later, the title was changed to procurator to reflect the principal
aspect of the job - collecting taxes.
If you know all this already ... my apologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antony Chapman 05/05/10:
I enjoyed Mike Lawrence's article in Ethical
Record on numbers in religion.
While I have considerable doubts about whether Jesus ever existed,
Steuart Campbell in this month's Freethinker says that his
life/death are well documented by contemporary historians. Can you
comment?
Why do you not give the names of the people who run this website?
I always have a low opinion of anonymous websites.
Antony Chapman
Hi Antony
Regards there being a wealth of contemporary
documentation about the life and death of one Jesus of Nazareth
circa 4 BCE to 30CE. I am afraid I would
categorically disagree with Steuart Campbell on this issue. There is in point of fact absolutely
no contemporary or corroborative writing for the historical
existence of such a character, divine or mortal. There is however,
boundless material to prove the existence of Christians.
I am glad you enjoyed the article. It is in
fact my own web site, the lecture that the article came from can be
found in the book advertised on this site "Astonishing Credulity" which covers a
lot more ground, and reveals the existence of literature which proves
that the Jesus Character existed as an allegorical figure prior
to Governorship of Pontius Pilate.
Best Regards
Mike Lawrence NOTORI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Garbett 23/03/10:
What a WONDERFUL website. The no-nonsense
message of 'it's OK to speak out' about this kind of psychological
abuse of children, is at last getting through. RI in schools is
effectively bullying and I am very much in favour of empowering
children and parents and giving them the confidence to say 'No'
Well done Notori !! from Lisa Garbett, Sharnbrook Bedfordshire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name
29/01/10:
How can I reduce my 5 year old son's exposure
to C of E culture at the local village school without insisting, for
example, that he be excused assembly every day, which I feel would
be unfair on him ? Any advice welcome ! The Cof E stuff seems to
infiltrate the classroom too, but one step at a time ...
Are there any other web spaces that I might find helpful in my
quest to tackle this issue ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 13/11/09:
"No" to indoctrination!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 04/10/09:
This is child abuse, They forced societies most
trusted, ie rectors and head teachers, to lead prayers about fake
ideologies that are spread faster than a virus around to population.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
23/03/09:Hi Alan,
Well, finally the EU shows it has some guts rather than what it has
been doing continuously for ages and cowardly submitting to the
dangerous aims of political Islam.
BTW, if you want to hear more of what Pat Condell has to say check
out these sites:
http://www.patcondell.net/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/patcondell
I wish more people are as outspoken as he is and bang on correct to
boot.
cheers
Paul Davis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan
30/03/2009: Looks like I was a little hasty and events have moved on from my
last post.
The US and EU threatened to boycott the HRC conference and they have
adjusted some of the wording around religious defamation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH86855
Regards
Alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 19/03/09:
Are you aware of
the Human Rights Council of the UN are currently putting together a
proposal to protect religions from abuse. If passed this would
require every country to implement laws that would effectively ban
websites like NOTORI.
Pat Condell has a video about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzTA_D5NpU&feature=channel_page
That could be a good option, lets start a new religion, freedom.
Freedom is my god you can't attack it, unfortunately you can prove
it doesn't exist in many of the countries that are supporting this
HRC proposal.
Regards
A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of "One Law for all Campaign"
No name 03/03/09:
Hi,
I hope Notori don't mind me posting this and although it isn't
directly on the topic of religion in schools it is entirely relevant
to everyone whether they be non-religious or otherwise. I intend of
being at this march and barring any unforeseen circumstances I will
be there.
cheers
Hello
March 7 is around the corner. We are looking forward to seeing many
of you at the anti-racist London rally against Sharia and
religious-based laws in Britain and elsewhere and in defence of
citizenship and universal rights in Trafalgar Square from 330-430pm.
You can find posters that have been prepared for the rally by Dan
Simon and Reza Moradi on our website. Please feel free to download
them and bring them along to the rally to ensure that there are
enough placards for everyone. At 4:30pm we will begin our march to
Red Lion Square and then join a public meeting at Conway Hall from
6:00-8:00pm. We will be registering people for the public meeting at
Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square WC1R 4RL from 5:00pm. From 5:30pm
onwards, there will be live music by Raised Voices, pastries and
refreshments. The entry fee to the public meeting is £5, including
refreshments but we won't turn anyone away. If you plan on coming,
try and send in your booking form before the event (by March 6) so
that we can reserve a place for you.
We now have over 9,700 signatories to our petition. Please sign up
to it if you haven't already and tell others about it too. For more
background on One Law for All, the nature of Sharia councils and
tribunals and on whether it is Islamophobic to oppose Sharia law,
see the latest interview with Maryam Namazie and Bahram Soroush on
Fariborz Pooya's Secular TV:
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/mediaPages/SecularTV.html. You
can also see what a Sharia judge really means for people and women
in particular by watching a recent BBC TV Big Questions programme in
which I participated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAKRvBe_-EA.
By the way, we have set up a free Helpline (which will be launched
at our public meeting) for those who need help with and legal advice
on Sharia law decisions. We are specifically targeting women and
children who may not be aware of their rights under British law or
fear to seek advice or go to secular courts due to pressures and/or
threats. Confidentiality and the safety of those who call on us will
be our main priorities. We will be collaborating with other advice
organisations such as AdviceUK in order to provide high standard
quality services and to find the best possible solutions available.
Yassi Molazadeh, our Legal Coordinator, has already established a
legal team to carry out much needed research in order to find ways
in which we can bring a halt to these kangaroo courts but we do need
lawyers, barristers and solicitors to provide pro bono legal advice
to those who come to us for help. We also need volunteers to receive
training in order to staff the Helpline and provide general
information and referrals. All our work is being run by volunteers
so if you want to help in any way, don't hesitate to contact us. We
need all the help we can get.
Moreover, we plan to go on a speaking tour across Britain and
internationally after the March events in order to inform the public
about and raise awareness on Sharia councils and tribunals. If you'd
like us to come and speak in your area, just contact our Outreach
Coordinator, Goranka Gudelj, to arrange it.
And please don't forget to donate! All this work costs money and we
can't do it without your financial support. No amount is too small
(or for that matter too big).
To donate, for more information, to download flyers, posters or a
booking form for the March 7 London public meeting or to sign the
petition, visit our website:
www.onelawforall.org.uk.
You can also contact us via:
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
Hope to hear from you soon.
Best wishes
Maryam
Maryam Namazie
Spokesperson
One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cox 25/02/09:
Re Paul to Nicola:
Paul; this is an excellent point. One has
to ask, what is collective worship (morning religious assembly of a
broadly Christian nature) supposed to be achieving when it is doing
exactly what the adopted Christian figurehead is reported to have
told Christians specifically not to do; being public prayer. The
same can be said for Sunday worship in Church. This passage seems to
expressly forbid public and community prayer, in that it would stop
a person gaining access to Narnia, (whoops I mean Heaven).
I love seeing contradictory Bible passages
being thrown into the mix; so how about this one.
To Dawn:
You responded to Mike’s question about the
Universe being very much a work in progress according to observation
as opposed to a job completed according to Genesis with:
I personally don’t see the problem with
Genesis 1 at all. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.” None of man’s theories make any sense to my logical mind.
To answer your statement God created man as in mankind. He did not
create you or me on that day just as Adam is not here now. I see no
problem with new stars being born. What is the difference? Why do
you try to limit God?
So explain Psalm 104:
“You have set the earth
firmly in its foundations, and it will never be moved”.
Well Since the time that this was written,
for me by a man living in the Iron Age and clearly ignorant of
planetary motion, but for you by Prophets recording the unerring
word of a creator God; we have discovered that sidereal and
precession, (the perceived daily/yearly movement of Sun, stars and
planets and the perceived astrological age movements of circa 26,000
years) are actually due to the earth moving. Wow, fancy that!
We have discovered the earth spins once
every 24 hours, revolves around the sun every 365.24 days and
wobbles on its axis, completing one wobble every 26,000 years.
Hardly an earth set firmly in its foundations, never to be moved?
This passage from Psalm 104 was used in
the prosecution of Galileo; by your ignorant, uneducated, Iron Age,
superstitious organisation called “The Church”.
John Cox
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
25/02/09:
The Logical Absurdity of Omnipotent Gods.
What is omnipotence? Well, the dictionary defines it as thus: Having
unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. (Dictionary.com).
Ok, so how could there possibly be anything wrong with that?
Let's pose this omnipotent being a question.
1. Can you make a rock so hot that you cannot touch it?
Let's work through the logic. Now, lets assume god makes the rock.
Can he touch it? Well, clearly not, otherwise he wouldn't have done
what was asked. But then, if he does make it, he is no longer
omnipotent because there is something he cannot do - ie. he can't
pick up the rock too hot for him to pick up. Of course, if he can't
make the rock then he isn't omnipotent then either. Oh dear......
Source for this question: The Simpsons. Yes, even the writers of the
Simpsons are quiet aware of the logical absurdity of omnipotence but
2000 years of praying doesn't seem to have made the religious aware
of it. I guess they weren't praying to be enlightened, but if they
were praying for enlightenment, would we need any further evidence
that praying doesn't work?
Seems being omnipotent is fraught with all sorts of dangers. You
can't make rocks you cannot touch, you can't make rocks you cannot
lift, you can't do anything _absolute_, because it renders the
antithesis of the absolute impossible.
Yet, what do we hear from the mouths of the religious all of the
time? We hear their pronouncements of absolutes. Now if we are made
in gods image as the bible maintains, then god has been making
absolutes for ever, and by now is rendered absolutely useless. Maybe
that's why there is no god in the world. He was absolutely too
stupid to realise that making absolutes renders himself powerless
and before he realised it was too late.
So please all you religious people out there. Thanks for painting
your god into a corner. I'm sure he needs the company which is
probably why so many of you delight in painting yourself into
corners too.
cheers
Paul Davis, Hertford
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
24/02/09: Hi Nicola,
You said: "I do not think religion should be forced into a public
school curriculum"
Good. So have you signed the petition that can be found through the
link on the home page of this website I presume?
You said: "but at the same time children who are religious
should be allowed to pray or read their bible at school in peace as
long as they don't force it on other students."
Why would they want to pray in school? Being Christians I thought
they would be taking Jesus' advice?
Matthew 6
5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love
to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be
seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward
in full.
6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to
your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done
in secret, will reward you.
7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they
think they will be heard because of their many words.
8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before
you ask him."
(NIV)
Or don't you heed the words of your favourite mythological
character?
You said: "As for faith schools if you don't like them don't send
your kids there."
We don't. Nor do we want to pay for them either. If you want faith
schools pay for them yourselves and don't keep leeching off this
predominantly secular society.
Paul Davis, Hertford
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
23/02/09:HI Nicola,
You said: "Since you do not believe in heaven or hell, I guess
it's not irresponsible of you. What I said was I do believe in God
and heaven and hell, therefore it would be extremely irresponsible
of me not to ensure my children are brought up Christian as I would
possibly be contributing to their damnation."
No, that's not what you said. This is what you said "You are
raising your children to the best of your ability, so that they have
the best chances and become successful, contributing well rounded
people and that is good. Just so if you believe as I do, then it
would highly irresponsible of me not to teach my children about God"
The intimation here is that if "I believe as you do" then it would
be irresponsible for ME to not teach them about god. But let me
address what you said here as well.
If I lived in a country where no one had heard of the bible or
Jesus, would I be in danger of damnation because I have not asked
Jesus to save me?
You said: "Lets face it there are many people out there who are
not to bright to begin with, what can you do."
I don't quite see what this has to do with the matter. Maybe you can
explain what people's intelligence level has to do with them being
indoctrinated in schools?
You said: "For the rest natural inquisitiveness will lead them
to explore other ideas and eventually make up their own minds."
Maybe they will maybe they won't. Intelligence is no guarantee. Not
being indoctrinated in the first place is the ideal situation.
You said: "You seem to have managed to make up your own mind,
that incidentally does not make the values, ideas etc you were
taught incorrect, that's just your opinion."
I have managed to make my mind up, but the point wasn't about making
your mind up it was about indoctrination and being exposed to it at
a young age and its effect. I shouldn't have "had to make my mind
up" is the point. I shouldn't have had to spend time weeding out
indoctrinated ideas from my mind especially ones that caused me
trouble. This is the point. If Christians hadn't implanted false
ideas into my mind in the first place I wouldn't have to deal with
them.
You said: "I'm sure you are not trying to compare school
practical classes with an actual career in the sciences because I'm
sure you would agree that is absurd. Sorry but really. "
Indeed I wouldn't say that, and I clearly didn't. This was in
response to you saying how you found the research you were doing
boring. I simply pointed out that when I did research I found it
interesting. So where you get this idea from I can't imagine. Or
rather, I can imagine.
You said: " It is also clear to me as I read further that whilst
you may have a very real interest in science you are no scientist
(also by your own admission) to then want to lecture me on the use
of the word theory is almost laughable."
I'll ignore your argument from authority as it is a known logical
fallacy. I didn't claim to be a scientist but this does not mean I
don't know anything about science. Your intimation is that because
you claim to be a scientist (a chemist not a pharmacist) that I am
not in the position to refute your misuse of the word theory within
science.
"I said theory because I meant it, in science as in every day
the term remains unchanged."
The term is simply not used in the same way in science as in
everyday colloquial use. In science when we have a system of ideas
that have not been supported with evidence we call it a hypothesis.
When a system of ideas has been supported by evidence it then
becomes a theory. ie. it's not just some idea plucked out of thin
air as you seem to be trying to indicate.
You said: "A possible explanation. Theories of all kinds have
evidence to support them, however not only can "evidence" be
tampered with it can be misinterpreted or simply be the result of
outdated or unsophisticated technology."
Indeed it can. And the beauty of science is that it self-corrects.
No theory is immutable and all are open to modification and even
rejection in the light of contrary evidence and/or better techniques
and understanding.
You said: "As for the theory of universal gravity , I'm afraid
its just that, a theory. Perhaps you should rethink your research
methods as this one has about as much gaps in it as the old
evolution conundrum. Isaac Newton himself said, "I suspect that my
theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have
searched all of nature in vain.""
Not sure what you're trying to say here but it looks like you're
saying that gravity does not exist. Is that what you're saying? We
don't see objects fall towards the ground and when the astronauts
were on the moon they didn't see things fall towards the moon? We
don't see planets orbiting the sun and we don't see moons orbiting
the planets?
Newton had a theory that explained WHAT WE OBSERVE. Newton's theory
however, is limited. It does not explain the precession of Mercury's
orbit for example and makes no predictions. It is, however,
perfectly valid within its range. We have for example used Newton's
theory of Gravity to plan the paths of satellites and interplanetary
probes very successfully. Newton's theory is certainly viable within
its scope as it explains what we see and gives us a tool to make
things happen in specific ways.
You said: "No science does not in general deal with proofs, it is
however, supposed to deal with facts, unless of course you actually
mean you like science fiction a wonderful and much more appropriate
outlet for all those crazy ideas they try to sell us in text books."
Nice ad hominen. Yes, those damn scientists (which you claim to be
one of). How dare they come up with all these theories that actually
work and create most of our modern life around us...... I mean how
dare they have the temerity to have a theory that WORKS.
Science does not deal with proofs at all. Science does deal with
facts and it tries to explain factual things. For example: why is
it a fact that objects fall towards the centre of objects (like
planets) at a predictable rate that is in proportion to the mass of
the objects?
Newton _conjectured_ a hidden force which he wrote down as the force
created by the mass of two objects divided by the square of the
distance between them multiplied by a constant - Newton's
gravitational constant. There was no doubt/is no doubt that gravity
exists and is measurable and its effects observable.
The debate is not about whether it exists but what it actually is.
Newton conjectured a force - g. Einstein, on the other hand,
conjectured that gravity is due to space-time curvature. He put
forward a geometrical solution to _what we see_ , and also, his
theory put forward predictions that can be tested. Einstein's theory
explained the precession of the orbit of Mercury for example -
something that we can observe. His theory also predicted that light
would be deflected from its path by gravitational bodies of
sufficient force. This was not observed until years later, but
Relativity certainly predicted it before we observed it and it is a
triumph for theoretical physics.
When Einstein developed General Relativity religion actually caused
him problems. His equations described a Universe that would be
either contracting or expanding. The accepted (and religious) view
of a created universe implied that it should be neither contracting
nor expanding. Einstein tried to incorporate it into his equations
with a "fudge factor" which was called the cosmological constant.
Einstein later called this the biggest blunder of his life as it was
later found that the Universe is indeed expanding and thus there was
no need for his fudge.
You said "You would like me to give some examples of evolutionary
theory gone awry, so be it.
Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million
years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago.
Yet archaeological records show civilization arising only about
5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking)."
Archaeological records show civilisations predating biblical
Genesis. Yet more evidence that it is utter creationist tripe.
You said: "In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took
mankind 95,000 years after becoming fully human to figure out that
food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!"
Your point being? What seems an obvious thing to you and I was not
always obvious to pre-civilised peoples. It is well known that
humans were hunter gatherers for a long time before they realised
the practicalities of farming crops on purpose.
You said: "Another indication of both a young earth and a
confirmation of the worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in
sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in
sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare."
But they do exist, and therefore render your flood creation myth
nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever of a world wide flood as
depicted in the Bible. The thing about floods is the bigger they
are, the more evidence they leave. A world wide flood would leave
masses of evidence and there is none.
You said: "Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands
have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the
planet’s surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly
during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would not
expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if
the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be
multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The
fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid
accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth."
Except that it isn't evidence for creationism whatsoever. If the
sediments were all laid down in a single year they would not show
any stratification. There would not be distinct layers and there are
very distinct layers. That we don't find "billions of meteors" in
sediments is not evidence against an old earth but support for a
dynamic and changing Earth and Universe. ie. not a static one
created 6000 years ago.
You said: "All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which
Should Have long ago disappeared."
Really? According to who?
You said: "All known comets burn up their material with each pass
around the sun and Should Have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000
years."
Really? According to who? Depends how close they come to the sun,
and how often.
You said: "The outer solar system planets should have long ago
cooled off."
Really? According to who? And what precisely do you mean by "cooled
off"? From what I've read they are pretty damn cold planets.
You said: "The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago un-spiralled,
and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long
ago dispersed."
Really? According to who?
You said: "Evolution is based on myth: Myth: The fossil record
proves evolution."
Really? Who said the fossil record proves evolution? The fossil
record is in accord with the theory of evolution.
You said: "Reality: There are no transitions between vastly
different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil
record."
DNA evidence is stacking up about intermediates between living
species, and throwing up some surprising relationships. Why would we
expect there to be living "transitions" between vastly different
"types" of animals? If these animals are related in the past then
they have diverged sufficiently far to become distinct species.
You said: "Lining up three objects by size or shape does not
prove that one turned into the other."
Again, you use the "proof" world. Science doesn't deal in proofs, it
tries to explain OBSERVATIONS, and if the theories that explain the
observations also make predictions then even better. Lining up three
objects by size or shape (aka cladistics) is known to be subjective
in many cases. Therefore science does not call it a proof. It is
evidence and we try to interpret that evidence as best we can.
You said: "Myth: Structural and biochemical similarities prove
common ancestry."
Again, the "prove" word. I tire of saying this but science does not
do proof. It deals with evidence. Evidence of biochemical
similarities is evidence of common ancestry between now distinct
species.
You said: "Reality: The lack of fossil transition strongly refute
this myth. Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations
for similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in
a more direct way."
No, it doesn't. There is no rule that a designer has to use the same
things or similar things to create two distinct things. A designer
as powerful as your supposed god has no limitation and could have
made the animals out of completely different things from each other.
Evolution, on the other hand, works with what is already there. ie.
there is no separate creation.
You said: "In addition, totally different organisms often display
similar features."
Indeed. This is called convergence. ie, when two different species
of animal find a solution to a problem be it in the detection and
hunting of prey, or in the prevention of being caught by predators.
Many disparate species are subject to the same evolutionary forces.
It would therefore make sense that similar "answers" are found to
similar problems.
You said: "This supports the existence of a common designer."
No, it is supporting evidence that two distinct species have been
subject to the same evolutionary forces.
You said: "Myth: The rock layers of the earth form the pages of
earth's history showing million of years of evolutionary
progression."
Progression? Evolution does not predict "progression". It predicts
change.
You said: "Reality: The fossil record does not show a clear
"simple-to-complex" progression of life forms. Life is complex and
well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major
groups of plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record,
with nothing leading up to them."
So stromatolites are well developed and complex? These are the
oldest known fossils on the planet. They are little more than pond
scum. That we don't have many fossils past the Cambrian period is
not evidence of creationism. It consistent with a dynamic planet.
Something your creation myth does not even talk about let alone
explain.
You said: "Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be
explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events."
Except for the problem that we find specific kinds of fossils in
specific layers. If they had all been laid down in a flood they
would all be jumbled up. They are not jumbled up, just like the
strata of sediments are not all mixed up.
You said: "Myth: Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They
are accurate and reliable."
Who said they were absolute? Only lying creationists say things like
this and then claim science said it.
We know elements decay. You being a chemist (or so you claim) should
know this too. From working out how much of each element there is
within a test item we can work out ball park figures for the ages of
many things.
You said: "Reality: Although radiometric dating methods seem to
show a trend of great age, these methods depend upon numerous other
assumptions."
No one is claiming radiometric dating to be perfect in any way shape
or form, but there is a vast difference between 6000 years, and 2
billion years.
You said: "When used to date events of known age, such as lava
flow in Hawaii or the Grand Canyon, they have been wrong by orders
of magnitude. How can we be sure they are accurate for events of
unknown age? "
Would you care to prop this claim up with some peer reviewed
evidence? ie. links to the articles showing Hawaii and Grand Canyon
samples to have been incorrectly dated.
You said: "Furthermore, the vast majority of dating method
indicate a very young earth."
No, they do not. We even have tree ring data that goes back farther
than the supposed creation mythology.
You said: "Myth: The human body contains many "vestigial organs"
, leftovers from our evolutionary development." Reality: Although at
one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as
vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. "
Like the coccyx for example.
You said: "After all, even if a few parts have lost their
original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate
evolution, you need to show the development of completely new
structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous
characteristics."
Evolution theory predicts both "loss and degeneration" and "new use
and evolution" of characteristics. It predicts change, and that is
precisely what we see.
You said: "Myth: The fossil record for human evolution is
complete and clear."
The only myth here is that science claims this. All scientists know
the fossil record is far from complete. We wouldn't get creationists
saying "there are no transition fossils" otherwise. Just like you
did above.
You said: "Reality: All too often the propagandists for evolution
present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person
believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing
as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst
Mayr) The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and
reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists
totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a
good scientific theory, much less a fact."
Please name many of these competent scientists who totally reject
evolution, who "acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific
theory, much less a fact".
You said: "Lastly by real science I meant real scientific
findings, not the assumptions based on these findings."
And who decides what is a "real scientific find and not an
assumption based on these findings"?
As I suspected you probably read most of that off the back of a
creationist anti-evolution leaflet. They commonly make claim after
claim about what science has supposedly said and then attack their
strawman arguments. They then make pronouncements about how things
"should be" but never go on to back up these "should-be's" with
anything resembling evidence. They also have the misconception that
if science is wrong then their bible is correct. This is incorrect
also.
I have been asking for years for creationists to support their
creation myth with evidence, and to date, they have not been able to
show anything to support it at all. They point to things and say "it
can only be that way if god made it" which is a nonsense statement
about a supposed omnipotent being who can do anything it wants in
any way it wants.
If your god was the architect of life then he was a pretty poor
designer making all kind of absurd things in the animal kingdom like
the poor design of the human eye for example. The poor design of the
giraffes neck. Bones that break easily. Soft body parts that can be
damaged easily and animals that feed on other animals. Why do they
need to feed at all? Surely a perfect god could make animals that
are entirely self-sufficient with no need for food or water?
You're really gonna have to come up with more than this out dated
creationist nonsense.
Paul Davis,
Hertford
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola 23/02/09:
To Notori
I do not think religion should be forced into a public school
curriculum, but at the same time children who are religious should
be allowed to pray or read their bible at school in peace as long as
they don't force it on other students.
As for faith schools if you don't like them don't send your kids
there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola
23/02/09:
To Paul
You say "I don't teach my children about god, but I can still
teach them about ethics and morality and about how actions can have
desirable and undesirable effects, for example. Would you say that
is highly irresponsible of me?"
Since you do not believe in heaven or hell, I guess it's not
irresponsible of you. What I said was I do believe in God and
heaven and hell, therefore it would be extremely irresponsible of me
not to ensure my children are brought up Christian as I would
possibly be contributing to their damnation.
You said "many children brought up by religious parents are not
taught to think only to follow."
and "Having been brought up in a Christian school which
reinforced ideas about gods when I got older I found that these
ideas nagged me quite a lot and caused me a great deal of concern
which could so easily have been avoided if these incorrect ideas not
been planted so firmly in my mind at a young age. "
Lets face it there are many people out there who are not to bright
to begin with, what can you do. For the rest natural
inquisitiveness will lead them to explore other ideas and eventually
make up their own minds. You seem to have managed to make up your
own mind, that incidentally does not make the values, ideas etc you
were taught incorrect, that's just your opinion.
You say "I did my share of practical work with regard to physics
and the other sciences when I was at school and found it intensely
interesting."
I'm sure you are not trying to compare school practical classes with
an actual career in the sciences because I'm sure you would agree
that is absurd. Sorry but really. It is also clear to me as I read
further that whilst you may have a very real interest in science you
are no scientist (also by your own admission) to then want to
lecture me on the use of the word theory is almost laughable. I
said theory because I meant it, in science as in every day the term
remains unchanged. A possible explanation. Theories of all kinds
have evidence to support them, however not only can "evidence" be
tampered with it can be misinterpreted or simply be the result of
outdated or unsophisticated technology. As for the theory of
universal gravity , I'm afraid its just that, a theory. Perhaps
you should rethink your research methods as this one has about as
much gaps in it as the old evolution conundrum. Isaac Newton
himself said, "I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a
force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain."
No science does not in general deal with proofs, it is however,
supposed to deal with facts, unless of course you actually mean you
like science fiction a wonderful and much more appropriate outlet
for all those crazy ideas they try to sell us in text books.
You would like me to give some examples of evolutionary theory gone
awry, so be it.
Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million
years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago.
Yet archaeological records show civilization arising only about
5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by
evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind 95,000 years after becoming
fully human to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a
seed into the ground!
Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the
worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock
layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers,
they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many
thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on
the planet’s surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down
rapidly during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would
not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However,
if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should
be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The
fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid
accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.
All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which Should Have long
ago disappeared.
All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the
sun and Should Have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000 years.
The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.
The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago un-spiralled, and the
uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago
dispersed.
Evolution is based on myth:
Myth: The fossil record proves evolution.
Reality: There are no transitions between vastly different types of
animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up
three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into
the other.
Myth: Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.
Reality: The lack of fossil transition strongly refute this myth.
Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for
similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a
more direct way. In addition, totally different organisms often
display similar features. This supports the existence of a common
designer.
Myth: The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history
showing million of years of evolutionary progression.
Reality: The fossil record does not show a clear "simple-to-complex"
progression of life forms. Life is complex and well developed
wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plants
and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing
leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain
can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.
Myth: Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate
and reliable.
Reality: Although radiometric dating methods seem to show a trend of
great age, these methods depend upon numerous other assumptions.
When used to date events of known age, such as lava flow in Hawaii
or the Grand Canyon, they have been wrong by orders of magnitude.
How can we be sure they are accurate for events of unknown age?
Furthermore, the vast majority of dating method indicate a very
young earth.
Myth: The human body contains many "vestigial organs" , leftovers
from our evolutionary development.
Reality: Although at one time there were dozens of features of the
human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have
important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their
original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate
evolution, you need to show the development of completely new
structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous
characteristics.
Myth: The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear.
Reality: All too often the propagandists for evolution present their
story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that
man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory
of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr) The
evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction
involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject
evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific
theory, much less a fact.
Lastly by real science I meant real scientific findings, not the
assumptions based on these findings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 13/02/09
@ Paul
Thank you for picking that one up.
@ Nicola
Could I add to Paul's questioning by also asking what contradictions
you were thinking of?
I did not say that science disproves god (you can't prove an
absence) but that the evidence for phenomena previously attributed
to a god had found more natural explanations.
Regards
A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
13/02/09 Dear Nicola,
This was such a brief statement that I nearly missed it.
You said "Real science does not contradict or disprove God."
What do you mean by "real science"?
regards,
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
13/02/09 Dear Nicola,
Pleased to meet you.
You said: "You are raising your children to the best of your
ability, so that they have the best chances and become successful,
contributing well rounded people and that is good. Just so if you
believe as I do, then it would highly irresponsible of me not to
teach my children about God, however, I agree that my beliefs should
not be forced onto any one else especially kiddies."
I'm glad to hear that you don't think religion should be forced upon
children. I don't quite see how it would be highly irresponsible to
not teach them about god. What god are you teaching them about and
what are you teaching them about that god is far more important
topic for discussion. I don't teach my children about god, but I can
still teach them about ethics and morality and about how actions can
have desirable and undesirable effects, for example. Would you say
that is highly irresponsible of me?
You said: "I would certainly not want them brain washed with
Muslamic ideals and can understand that enforcing Christian beliefs
is not the way to go. I would rather minister to people who are old
enough and in a clear state of mind and able to make their minds up
for themselves."
Indeed. Brainwashing of any kind is not a good thing as it robs
people of their critical reasoning facility. Implanting ideas of
absolutes in general is to be avoided if you want thinking people in
the world. I can speak from my own experience on that point. Having
been brought up in a Christian school which reinforced ideas about
gods when I got older I found that these ideas nagged me quite a lot
and caused me a great deal of concern which could so easily have
been avoided if these incorrect ideas not been planted so firmly in
my mind at a young age.
You said: "as for the children of religious parents, they to will
grow up, learn about the world and other things and then can also
make up their minds."
I don't find that is always case. I have spoken with many people who
have been brought up in religious households and when they have got
older they have really struggled to weed out the indoctrination they
have been exposed to from a very early age. The mind is a wonderful
thing but when you have a stance enforced upon your psyche from a
very young age and it is continually reinforced it can be extremely
hard to shake that indoctrination off. It can easily become a
burden.
You said: "Assuming they have any, ha ha, no seriously ideally
parents should also be teaching their children to think for
themselves be confident."
Unfortunately, many children brought up by religious parents are not
taught to think only to follow.
You said: "I'm not that fond of Physics, to much theory that
can't be proven one way or the other, and application can be
extremely boring, I recently helped on a physics project regarding
the metal surface for rocket/missile etc application, sounds way
cool, in reality it was a lot of grafting , microscopy, data
collecting, yawn oh sorry, lucky you, you just get to read about the
cool results. I'm a chemist (not a pharmacist)."
I did my share of practical work with regard to physics and the
other sciences when I was at school and found it intensely
interesting. The only reason I didn't go on to a life as a scientist
is due to other things that had been going on in my life and it took
a different turn. I don't regret this however, but I still sit at
home and work through theorems from time to time to gain greater
insight into what I read about.
You said: "Speaking of things that can't be proven one way or the
other, evolution. Seems that every argument has a counter argument,
it urkes me that this THEORY is force fed to children and conveyed
as fact."
Your capitalisation of the word "theory" here leads me to believe
that you don't understand that when this word is used in science it
does not mean the same as it does in everyday colloquial use. When
people use it in everyday language by saying things like "I have a
theory that so and so did that because of this or that" this is not
the same as how it is used in science. A scientific theory is a
system of ideas that has been supported with evidence.
For example, you have brought up the theory of evolution. This
theory is supported with a great deal of evidence. For anyone to
want to claim that it is wrong they would have to show alternative
ideas that can also be tested in the same way that the theory of
evolution has been tested, and how/where the theory of evolution is
incorrect.
Another theory is the theory of gravity. There are actually two
theories of gravity. We have Newtonian Gravity and we have
Relativistic Gravity. Both are valid and have their place and scope.
Newtonian gravity is quite adequate for most uses, but when we get
into areas where there are extremely high gravitational forces it
becomes less accurate and in those places we would use Relativistic
gravity because it is far more accurate and more in accord with the
evidence. Yet, even though they are _theories_ do you have any doubt
about the existence of gravity?
You should be aware that science does not deal in proofs. Again, the
word proof is everyday colloquialism and has no place in science. No
scientist worth his salt would ever exclaim that a theory is proved.
He would be more likely, and more correct, to say that the evidence
in support of a theory is beyond any reasonable doubt.
You said: "If we are talking about raising well rounded,
critically minded adults why are they lied to on this point and not
given all the facts, real facts not the countless examples found to
be fraudulent yet are still sighted."
They are not lied to about evolution theory. Maybe you would like to
show us some of the examples that you think are fraudulent and we
can discuss them because thus far you have only made a generalised
sweeping statement and have not supported it. Let's see if your
theory holds up in the light of the evidence.
You said: "Lastly, MTV and the media in general do hurt people,
spreading immorality and glorifying violence, children are being
exposed to this crap to, don't say it doesn't have an effect, it
does."
I'm not going to say anything until you put some weight behind your
claim and give me some examples of why you think it spreads
immorality or glorifies violence. Again, let's see if your theory
holds up in the light of the evidence.
regards,
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTORI Post
13/02/09: Hi Nicola
Many thanks for your post and your views.
I do not want to record this incorrectly in the stats so could you
confirm my understanding for me?
While being religious, you are against
children being indoctrinated into particular religions in schools
(faiths schools)? I get the impression that you would be against
this. If so, what are you views on religion in schools in general,
ie religious education in community schools?
The gist of your text is very refreshing.
For tolerance to exist, there needs to be acceptance in all
directions for peoples views in religious/non religious matters;
which this site supports even although it aims to strongly question
theology. But the main thrust of the site is: our collective views on
un-resolvable belief differences should not form part of the
education curriculum and no group, theist or atheist, should receive
special status in political issues.
Regards NOTORI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicola
13/02/09
Dear A.
Real science does not contradict or disprove God.
Dear Paul,
You are raising your children to the best of your ability, so that
they have the best chances and become successful, contributing well
rounded people and that is good. Just so if you believe as I do,
then it would highly irresponsible of me not to teach my children
about God, however, I agree that my beliefs should not be forced
onto any one else especially kiddies. I would certainly not want
them brain washed with Muslamic ideals and can understand that
enforcing Christian beliefs is not the way to go. I would rather
minister to people who are old enough and in a clear state of mind
and able to make their minds up for themselves. as for the children
of religious parents, they to will grow up, learn about the world
and other things and then can also make up their minds. Assuming
they have any, ha ha, no seriously ideally parents should also be
teaching their children to think for themselves be confident.
I'm not that fond of Physics, to much theory that can't be proven
one way or the other, and application can be extremely boring, I
recently helped on a physics project regarding the metal surface for
rocket/missile etc application, sounds way cool, in reality it was a
lot of grafting , microscopy, data collecting, yawn oh sorry, lucky
you, you just get to read about the cool results. I'm a chemist
(not a pharmacist).
Speaking of things that can't be proven one way or the other,
evolution. Seems that every argument has a counter argument, it
urkes me that this THEORY is force fed to children and conveyed as
fact. If we are talking about raising well rounded, critically
minded adults why are they lied to on this point and not given all
the facts, real facts not the countless examples found to be
fraudulent yet are still sighted.
Lastly, MTV and the media in general do hurt people, spreading
immorality and glorifying violence, children are being exposed to
this crap to, don't say it doesn't have an effect, it does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 12/02/09:
Dawn,
Do you realise that science was born out of the search for god by
god fearing humans.
It was as the evidence grew, that the things that were traditionally
attributed to god had natural explanations that the idea of the
non-existence of a god arose. There was less and less that needed a
god.
Regards
A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
12/02/09:Dear so-called
Dawn,
You said: "I completely see your problem (and the problem of
every other atheist.) You have no desire to accept that verse and so
you are in the dilemma. Not me. "
We have no such dilemma as you claim. We know your biblical creation
story is nonsense as it doesn't explain, predict, or match observed
reality. It's not a question of acceptance. It's a matter of it
bearing no relation whatsoever to the facts, and desires don't even
enter into it.
For example, on the first day of creation according to the bible
there was water. On day 4 of the creation according to the bible the
stars are made. What is the relevance of me saying this?
Here's the problem: in order to make water you need oxygen, and
there was no free oxygen in the Universe until stars had existed
long enough to make oxygen (a process that carries on today in
observable stars in the Universe). You see in the Big Bang no
elements higher than an atomic number of 3 were created. Oxygen has
an atomic number of 8. ie. there was no water "in the beginning"
because there was no oxygen to make it. Your biblical creation is
not even in the correct order and as such you claiming it to bear
any relation to the facts is laughable in the extreme.
The bible makes no mention of gravity, electromagnetism, or the
strong or weak nuclear forces. Why is that? It makes no mention of
leptons or hadrons. It makes no mention of element abundance. It
makes no mention of DNA. It makes no mention of cosmic background
microwave radiation. It makes no mention of neutrinos, quarks,
protons, neutrons or electrons. It's a creation mythology created by
HUMANS who were entirely ignorant of the facts.
You said: "Why will you not accept it? Because you do not want
there to be a God."
We can easily counter, the only reason you want to believe it is
because you want there to be a god and you think clinging to this
outdated and ignorant creation mythology will make the pie in the
sky exist.
It's not a question of wanting there to be a god or not. There's no
evidence of any gods and your facile argument "None of man's
theories make any sense to my logical mind" is the weakest argument
you have put forward so far. You are literally saying "I am ignorant
of science therefore what I think must be true".
You said: " So countless numbers of people live and die trying to
disprove God"
Scientists don't set out to disprove god. It is a side effect of
their discoveries that your god isn't needed.
You said: " and trying to disprove the fact of creation"
The biblical creation myth is not a fact. It's ignorant nonsense.
You said: "whilst trying to prove their varying theories without
succeeding."
On the contrary. Big bang theories have supporting evidence. Proof
is for mathematics and alcohol. There is no supporting evidence for
your creation myth.
You said: "The Christian therefore has the answer."
The Christians believe they have the answer. No amount of belief
will make their answer true in light of all the evidence that shows
it to be nonsense.
You said: " The atheist will constantly continue to look for an
answer and never find it."
And now you claim to be able to predict the future. How do you know
"the atheist" will never find it? Hmm? Yet more of your assumptions
that show you to be closed minded to anything that shows your death
cult mythology to be ignorance.
You said: "I thank you for posting what I have written and I
thank you for all your comments. I do realise that we have wandered
away from the reason of your website but it has been an interesting
discussion. I will continue to look in on your site."
Do I take this to mean that this post was your parting shot and you
are no longer going to offer up any more of your pearls of wisdom?
Colour me surprised that once you have painted yourself into a
corner you decide to bow out and claim you won the argument.
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 12/02/09:
Hi Mike,
You said..” One last piece of food for thought for you; if you
are of the view that the bible is literal and the unerring word of
God, you need to consider this dilemma: The bible states quite
unambiguously that God created the universe in 6 days. This has been
played around with in the past to help square the 6,000 year bible
span with the incredible age of the earth; for example, statements
like 1 god day represent a 1000X1000 earth days. But nonetheless it
states “created” as in past tense, job done, mission completed,
final state. Why then is the universe expanding, and expanding at an
accelerating speed. Why are there nebula that are stella nurseries
where new stars are being born, while at the same time old stars go
supernova and die. The universe is very much a work in progress and
still growing and forming. This is in complete contradiction to the
book of genesis, but it is a fact!”
I personally don’t see the problem with Genesis 1 at all. “In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” None of man’s
theories make any sense to my logical mind.
To answer your statement God created man as in mankind. He did not
create you or me on that day just as Adam is not here now. I see no
problem with new stars being born. What is the difference? Why do
you try to limit God?
But I completely see your problem (and the problem of every other
atheist.) You have no desire to accept that verse and so you are in
the dilemma. Not me. Why will you not accept it? Because you
do not want there to be a God. So countless numbers of
people live and die trying to disprove God and trying to disprove
the fact of creation whilst trying to prove their varying theories
without succeeding. The Christian therefore has the answer. The
atheist will constantly continue to look for an answer and never
find it.
I thank you for posting what I have written and I thank you for all
your comments. I do realise that we have wandered away from the
reason of your website but it has been an interesting discussion. I
will continue to look in on your site.
Every blessing,
Dawn.
P.S. Sorry I didn't see all those other posts after yours. I will
read them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cox
12/02/09: To Dawn.
If the first part of A is correct:
God is Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient (All seeing and
knowing) and Omnipresent (ever present everywhere).
Then there are no natural disasters that an Omnipresent God could
not see, that an Omniscient God would not know about and an
Omnipotent God could not stop.
So your God would be personally responsible for the deaths of all people who have
ever died in natural disasters.
Of course the obvious answer would be B is correct and these are
just natural disasters; unless you think all people who die in
natural disasters are being punished in some way. In which case,
please do not preach/teach to children anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 12/02/09:
To so called Commonsense
You said “You state God is Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient
(All seeing and knowing) and Omnipresent (ever present everywhere).
There can only be two possible conclusions from the above
statements:
A: They are correct statements and
-----------------------------------“
The first part of A. is correct. Your ‘and’ does not follow
on from that statement so taken as a whole neither are correct.
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
12/02/09:Dear Dawn
You said: "At the outset I would let you know that I am talking
about both club and church. I run an out of school club where we
teach the bible alongside having other activities. And before you
start criticising me about being deceitful it is held in my church.
The time I mentioned about church was for a Sunday morning."
Then the question remains: why would non-Christians be taking their
children to a Christian church?
You said: "It appears I’m not in on the discussion. What you say
is totally disrespectful, and you know full well that to Christians
you are openly being blasphemous. Now answer me honestly. Is this
what you would like to walk into school and tell teachers and
children alike?"
When did I say I want anything I personally have said taught in
schools? Hmm? I didn't, and have not. Yet again you erect a strawman
response and attack it rather than what I actually said.
For your information: I don't want religious schools teaching
non-critical minds that their sole religion is the one and only
truth in the Universe. I don't want Christian schools, or Muslim
schools or any other religions schools. I want general education and
if religion is to be taught I want all religions taught and their
roots. Not just discussion about bible stories or Quran stories or
other religious stories. If religion is taught in schools I want
children to have the full story and not the idealised versions that
you want put in schools without the child having any compunction or
coercion to believe what is said. I want them to be given the FACTS
so that they can decide for themselves when they have the facility
to use critical thinking and examination effectively. ie. if you
want to preach it, then do it on your own turf and not in schools
paid for by me and other tax payers.
No, it is blasphemous for YOU to say it. I don't subscribe to your
beliefs thus it isn't blasphemy for ME to say it. My dead god on a
stick statement is not disrespect it's an absence of respect. Why
would I respect a religion that implants ideas into children's minds
that their every thought is being monitored by a punishing
malevolent tyrant god and if they decide to reject him then he will
come and hunt them down either in life by visiting them with pain
and suffering or after death by sending them to hell? This is mental
abuse and it should be outlawed.
I notice you didn't try and castigate your fellow believer "No Name"
for all the insults he threw around in his tirade. That's quite
alright with you I take it? Colour me surprised.
With regard to omniscience: You said: "No this doesn’t follow at
all. I can know that my disobedient and rebellious child (just for
example) plans to visit peers who are putting pressure on him to
join in their anti-social activities. I can stop him by chaining him
in his bedroom or I can allow him out to find out the hard way that
he will only eventually get caught out by higher authority and that
he would have done better to listen to me! I’m not powerless, but
I’m not a dictator mother. I give him free will so he can learn to
live within society."
Good grief. You really don't know what omniscience is do you. God
knew that you would let your child go out because he sees your child
being arrested tomorrow for smashing a car window (using your
example).
In a universe with an omniscient god you don't have any choices. The
future has already been set in stone. You might think that you have
a choice but god knew that you would think that. He can see the
future and he designed you that way. In a universe with an
omniscient god you cannot do anything other than what god has
already seen you do.
You said: "Yes, I would be sinful in God’s Presence."
Yet again another strawman response. I didn't ask you about sin. Sin
is a biblical definition and I asked, "would you be evil if
there was no bible?" Please answer the question.
Let me put another question to you: if I lived in a country where
the bible was unheard of would I be going to hell because I have not
asked Jesus to save me?
You said “Exodus 20 v 23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me;
do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold. Verses
23-24 are about idols and altars. Yes, remember that one about not
making idols.”
You said: "Do you have any gods more important than the Creator
God.?"
I don't have a creator god. YOU believe in a creator god.
You said: "Of course you do. Your job, your bank balance, your
home. We can all fall into the trap of worshipping these more than
God."
You think I worship my job, my bank balance and my home? Your
arguments get weaker and weaker.
1. I need a job because this society requires money in order to buy
food and services. Working for money is the shortest route to that
end. So I work because it is a means to an end.
2. I have a bank account and I have to make sure I have enough in
that account to pay bills.
3. I have a home as in this society that's what people do. They
make a home and live in it.
How you equate this with worshiping a god is beyond me.
You said: "I don’t worship crucifixes and don’t possess any."
So there are no crosses in your church?
You said: "Exactly the opposite. Jesus is not on a cross but
alive in heaven. But I would not scorn those Christians who do make
much of a crucifix because they see BEYOND what it is made of and
remember the Person Who died there for them."
It doesn't matter if you see beyond them or not. Unless you are
claiming that these crucifixes, with or without a depiction of Jesus
on them, spontaneously appear out of thin air, then they were made,
and your god said "don't make idols".
I said "Now look at Exodus ch.21…. "
You said: "Read in context these are laws for the Israelites."
Then the ten commandments are only for the Israelites. They don't
come in separate packages of 10 for everyone, the rest just for the
Israelites.
You said: "They also had to make animal sacrifices as you well
know".
If you think the ten commandments are for you, then you also have to
make sacrifices. They aren't pick and choose the laws you like. It's
all or nothing.
You said: "Jesus came to give His Life as the ultimate sacrifice
so animal sacrifice was done away with. Read Hebrews 7 v 27. Jesus
came to do away with the old law and offer grace, whilst at the same
time stressing the most important commandments."
Thanks for posting more evidence that Jesus lied. He said that he
had not come to change the laws but to fulfil them in Matthew. Here
you quite clearly show us that Jesus changed the laws and thus is
exposed as a liar which is incidentally one of the many reasons your
Jesus is not accepted as the messiah, or moshiach, of the Jews.
You said: "We have been looking at the story of Samuel and
linking it with the call of others in the bible such as the
disciples and the apostle Paul."
What is the relevance to today's world?
You said: "We talked about Isaiah and his words “here I am; send
me” How he made himself available. I asked them to think of those
words every morning to help them remember to be willing to help
other children at school and family members. "
I assume you are talking about Isaiah ch.6. verse 8.
This is where your god tells Isaiah that his people are beyond
saving and that Isaiah should stop preaching to them as his
preaching will ironically actually ensure that they will not accept
god and be saved.
So, what you're actually saying is that you take ONE sentence from
ONE verse of the bible completely out of context and use it to apply
to situations far removed from what the actual text says?
You said: "Sure I could mention plenty more but I doubt you’re
really interested so there is just one example."
No I am interested to hear more of how you misrepresent the bible by
use of out of context quotes with children. Please furnish me with
more examples.
I said to No Name “I rather feel that you must be living a terrible
existence waiting for death and wanting others to join you in that
wait for death.”
You said: "To the contrary. A Christian realises that this life
is fleeting and death is only the beginning. But I don’t know why
you call Christianity a death cult. I am thankful for each day and
live my life with joy and peace; yet with tribulations and sadness
just like anyone else. But I can still look forward to life after
death."
The reason I call it a death cult is contained in that last sentence
of yours.
You said in response to “I don't want eternity.” "No I don’t
suppose you do. But we don’t always get what we want".
LOL. Would you mind explaining precisely what you mean, please?
I said “History has shown us ….that when people die they are
forever and eternally dead.”
You said: "How?"
Why did you delete "(lies and god myths aside)" from what I said? I
have a suspicion of why but I'll let you have the chance to explain
your actions. Please explain your actions.
"How" what? How has history shown us that people when
they die are dead forever?
Let me see, its pretty hard to be alive when either you have been
cremated and turned into smoke and ashes or decomposed. Not one
person has turned back from smoke and ashes or recomposed into a
living being. Unless of course you have some evidence to the
contrary - lies and god myths apart - of course.
You seem to have neglected answering much of my previous post, and
yet again, no discussion on famine from a previous post to that. I
invite you to reply to all of my points just as I reply to all of
yours.
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
12/02/09: Hi Dawn,
Commonsense said “I fail to see how ...God entity be kind, loving
and forgiving. Why, because he doesn’t seem to be in Australia right
now? So; is it that he does not really exist, or is he willing to
let people die when all he need do is make it rain?”
You replied: "As I have said to other posters before we need to
get out of our little box and realise that we are not God. Why
should we try to control Him and tell Him what He should or should
not be doing? What gives us the right? It’s all very well to say ‘if
I was God I would……’. But we are not and so we can’t."
Commonsense didn't ask for god to do anything. He asked why god
DOES NOT do anything.
What gives us the right to ask? Let me see, we don't like
seeing people burned to death for no reason when a supposed
omnipotent god can do something about it.
Paul Davis, Hertford
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
12/02/09Dear No Name,
You said: " We'll see! If you are right and I worship a fictional
character, I will simply die having lived a full, moral, comforted
life, filled with purpose (if u right a dum purpose) but never the
less purpose."
I have no objection to that. What I have an objection to is
religious ideologies being taught as fact to young non-critical
minds in state schools. I stated this with my first post on this
site "No name: 21/11/2008 I have no problem with personal faith."
which I forgot to sign at the bottom hence it got published as "No
name".
I also have a problem when people of faith come to me and try to
convince me, or rather, they find they have a problem if they think
they CAN convince me. I've yet to hear one convincing argument for
why I should subscribe to any religion.
You said: "However if I am right, you are in a bit of trouble."
If god himself came down right now to me and revealed himself he
would have to convince me not to check myself into a mental asylum
before I have any chance of believing in any god.
You said: "Our trouble , why we will never be able to agree (no
agree is the wrong word, cant think of the right one right now), is
a fundamental difference of opinion on this life and how important
it is. You think that's all there is, I see it as only the
beginning. I do not wish for death nor do I fear it, it's just one
of those things that are part of life. I feel I may have come on a
bit strong "ranting" as it were, but I stumbled on this site and my
curiosity was aroused. I wondered how so many people can feel so
strongly about er nothing, atheists believe in nothing right, big
unexplainable bang, everything or whatever."
I can't speak for other non-believers I can only speak for myself. I
don't call myself an atheist. I am just me. The only thing I
probably have in common with a lot of other non-believers is that
they don't believe in a god either. Apart from that it is quite
possible we don't have much else in common.
I don't say that god does not exist. I simply do not believe in any
god. Religions do nothing but convince me further as they are so
clearly the wants of mankind dressed up as the desires of an unseen
deity. ie. from my perspective much religion is simply man
expressing his wants and desires as if through the eyes of an all
powerful being in the hope that his wants and desires will be taken
more seriously and people will follow them and lead to the world
that the person desires.
The gods depicted have far too much of humanity in them to be
something above humanity. I simply cannot believe in a punishing god
who can see into our minds/hearts who would punish us for not
believing in him without taking into account the lives we have
actually led that made us choose non-belief. To me a god that would
punish us for such is a tyrant who does not care about us but only
for his own self-gratification. I also cannot believe that an all
powerful being with infinite compassion for humans would allow so
many of us to suffer so greatly for so long and do nothing to ease
our pain. If the means (our existence) justify his end, then I want
no part of that end.
You said: "It was wrong of me to say your lives are empty etc,
this argument often fails and for good reason. although I meant
spiritually, you know something missing despite having it all. I
took the chance it would hit home somewhere, after all my intention
was not to attack but help."
I'm quite aware of what you were doing. You are not the first and I
am sure you won't be the last and I can assure you, there are far
far worse in the world. However, thank you for saying you were wrong
to do so.
You said: "Mr Davis you said you read up on current science, what
kind, I only ask as I myself am a scientist."
Call me Paul. I hate being called Mr Davis. I don't class myself as
a scientist. I have an interest in science that started when I was
younger than I can remember. I am mainly interested in physics and
cosmology but I also read about other aspect of science such as
evolution theory. As you are probably aware, physics covers
practically all the other sciences and is a very broad subject in
itself and as such it is the main part of the science I read about.
You said: "I have a few more comments about things stated on this
site. Oh and Mr Cox if you thought I meant geographically you kinda
missed the bus."
I can't speak for Mr Cox, but I found his observation quite relevant
to the bible and Judaism even if it was off target from what you
were saying. My personal feeling about the Gaza conflict that
happened recently is that it is due in large part to the religion of
Judaism and thus a good example of how religion is bringing pain,
hardship and death to people in that area of the world. I have a lot
of sympathy for the people of Gaza and little respect for their
aggressors.
You said: "1. No where in the bible does it say celebrate the
birth of Christ, you are correct Christmas is a throw back to
something else, integrated by certain religious bodies to help early
conversion. Not a good thing, anyway you see how well that held up,
total commercialisation bull dust."
Ask most people when Jesus is claimed to have been born and they
will say 25th December. To me this actually exposes how little
people know about their lives and why we have these traditions. Most
people follow traditions without ever stopping to wonder where these
traditions come from. Religions do indeed celebrate Christmas with
special masses etc. even if you yourself do not and you would find
it hard to convince me otherwise.
You said: "2. Jesus did NOT come to make anything here on earth
better, wonderful, peaceful etc, He came so we may be forgiven our
sin and have eternal life."
That seems to be the general thrust of what Jesus is claimed to have
said he was here for. I don't believe he actually existed myself,
and I believe what he said and claimed to have done (miracles) even
less. However, I would find it hard to believe that Jesus was saying
these things in order to keep the status quo. In my opinion he
certainly was hoping to improve things for people as evidenced
through his claimed miracles.
You said: 3. "What I meant by distasteful, you need only tune
into MTV to see what I mean, rising crime, swearing, violence all
around us everyday, and most just carrying on thinking, it's fine we
have a right to do what we want."
One mans sugar is another mans sour with regard to MTV. From my own
perspective if no one is being hurt in the process then it doesn't
matter. Swearing doesn't bother me personally. I swear like a
trooper on occasion. The only reason I don't allow my children to
swear is that it is generally not acceptable in public society. I
want them to succeed in society so I teach them that not swearing is
the default stance and if they do have occasion to want to swear
that they pick their time and place carefully (and out of ear shot
from me). Crime and violence seems to rise and fall along with how
well society is doing in general. This is to be expected. If it is
on the rise then it says that society as a whole needs to work
harder to make things better for us all and not just select groups
within society. For the record, we don't have MTV in my house simply
because I see it pointless to pay for something that I never would
watch.
You said: "I hope Mr Davis your children aren't daughters who
have to grow up with role models like the pussy cat dolls and idols
winners, wandering why don't I look like that, oh well the guys will
sleep with me anyway. Yuk, I think the music industry needs to be
checked whether you a Christian or a which you have to notice
something very wrong going on there."
I have two sons. I want them to be individuals so I do whatever I
can to urge them to be individuals and decide for themselves what
they want (with guidance). I couldn't really tell you that they have
any kind of idols. They don't have posters on their walls of any
particular people but as they are both pre-teens I think that is
probably yet to come. Currently they are at the stage of finding
things they enjoy from life like all kids of their age. They are
exploring their world and finding new things everyday. My wife and
myself try not to see them as children as such, but as apprentice
adults who will one day become adults and have to carve their own
niches in life, and as such we try to give them as much advice and
information as we can in order to achieve that end. Whether we will
succeed or not only time will tell but if we fail it won't be from
lack of trying.
As to popular culture. There is much there that I find completely
disinteresting. Much the same as my parents were disinterested in a
lot of the popular culture that existed when I was a young boy and I
fond interesting. Some of it looks distinctly poor of intention and
poor in application, but I don't believe in censorship and hiding
these things away. If people enjoy it, and no one is being hurt,
then I have no axe to grind. Of course there are limits to this but
I think the laws as we find them today are more or less adequate to
keep most things within reasonable bounds. Should I find anything
that I sincerely feel is wrong and should be stopped I would rightly
petition for such.
You said: "4. Jesus said drink of this wine , eat of this bread,
do this in remembrance of me, not eat or die like Mithra watshisface."
Depends on your denomination. Catholics certainly take it literally
and in the way Mithra said.
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
12/02/09: Dear Dawn,
I know Mike has already replied to you on this part of your post but
it is a subject that greatly interests me.
You said: "When is there ever a creation without a creator? If I
were to tell you that the house you live in wasn’t actually made by
anyone but it started out as a teaspoon of cement and over a long
period of time made itself into bricks which joined together
perfectly along with other materials such as glass"
You are using just another form of William Paley's "Watchmaker"
argument. This has been discredited ad nauseum for years. A simple
search of the internet will yield many rebuttals.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=william+paley+rebuttal&btnG=Search
I invite you to read some of them.
The problem I see with Paley's argument is that he points to a watch
as being a clearly designed by a designer because it stands out from
nature. However, if you believe god created the Universe then
nature was also designed - by the designer called god. Therefore
nature is also a designed by a designer.
If both nature and the watch are designed by designers then the
watch should appear to be part of nature as both were designed by
designers. Yet the argument states that the watch STANDS OUT from
nature because it was designed by a designer which means that
nature cannot have been designed by a designer otherwise the watch
would not stand out as clearly designed.
Paley's argument, and your house argument which is exactly the same
argument, are fatally flawed because you claim obvious when it
should not be obvious if both nature and the house/watch are
designed by a designer.
Richard Dawkins draws a distinction in his book "The Blind
Watchmaker" and calls natural entities, like plants and animals, "designoid".
ie. something that looks like it was designed but has actually been
shaped by blind natural forces. A watch on the other hand is
"designed" and has indeed been designed by a designer.
You said: "……….the notion is utterly crazy. But you are claiming
imaginations which are far more ridiculous."
We are not claiming anything. You're the one making claims and not
supporting them with anything except tired old arguments that have
been discredited and rebutted for many many years before you decided
to repeat them.
You said: "How does gravity come about?"
Gravity comes about due to mass. All massive objects yield a
gravitational field. Now, if you're asking why do massive objects
have gravitational fields current theory suggests it has to do wth
the Higgs field and the associated quantum particle the Higgs-boson.
But you're asking how did gravity come to exist. No one knows how
but some current theory suggests that it has something to do with a
thing called "supersymmetry". We are pretty much able to trace back
the evolution of the Universe from a point some
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001secs after the Big
Bang. What happened before that we don't have a clue and possibly
will never have a clue due to the energies involved in order to
penetrate past that point.
You said: "How come we are just the right amount of distance away
from the sun for us to feel its warmth and receive its light without
being frazzled or iced to death?"
We do get frazzled from time to time. What do you think sunburn is?
We do get frozen from time to time. Ask people who have suffered
frost bite. We have found many bodies that have been frozen to
death. The earth isn't the right distance from the sun. There is no
such thing as a right distance from the sun. Your question is
flawed.
If the earth was 10 million miles further from the Sun than it is
currently, and the greenhouse effect more pronounced you could have
a liveable Earth ten million miles further from the Sun. You would
no doubt then make the same flawed argument just 10 million miles
further from the Sun.
You said: "Take the complexities of the human eye."
Do you realise how poorly designed that is? Good grief. If your god
is perfect as you insist he doesn't display that perfection with the
human eye. This is really quite a laughable argument to make.
You said: "Do you seriously have enough faith to believe the
universe evolved from nowhere?"
I don't pretend to know where it came from, but we can certainly
trace its evolution a long way back to the Big Bang and not only
that but we predicted a cosmic microwave background radiation before
it was discovered. That cosmic microwave shouldn't be there if there
was no Big Bang.
You said: "And holds itself together by chance?"
Have you ever read anything about probability and quantum mechanics?
Get down to the quantum realm and EVERYTHING is chance. The Universe
at it outset was the size of a quantum therefore chance could well
be an element.
You said: "Think about it again."
I think about it almost everyday. Cosmology is one of my favourite
subjects. I have yet to find a god theory that holds any water and
is anything but an argument from ignorance/god of the gaps. The
argument goes like this "You see, you can't explain it, therefore
god did it". Well, no. If I can't explain it, it doesn't mean your
god made it. All you did was squeeze your god into a place of
ignorance - a gap in our knowledge.
It is quite clear that the more we find out via science the less
places there are for your god to have a hand.
You said: "Do you seriously have that amount of faith in
‘accidents’ and ‘chance’? I cannot fathom how you can possibly have
such a faith."
Science is not a faith stance. Again, you make flawed claims.
You said: "And yet you want your faith passed onto every child in
Britain"
Science is taught in schools already and has been for a long time.
It's not faith. Science is not a faith stance.
You said: "because by wishing to remove religious education from
school you are sending out the message that there is no God."
No we are not. We are sending out the message to religions that if
you want people to spout your nonsense then you'll have to do it
outside of our schools because these are places of learning, not
indoctrination.
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
12/02/09: Dawn,
You said: "In other words you wish to teach the religion of
atheism"
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, but it is certainly not a
religion and to suggest such is base ignorance on your part.
Atheism is not however, necessarily a lack of religion. For example,
Siddartha Gotama, aka The Buddha, when asked about belief in gods is
reputed to have said "I have seen no gods". One could therefore
argue that despite being religious - he certainly had a system of
beliefs that he followed - because he did not believe in a god he
was an atheist.
A- theism - without god(s).
A-gnostic - without knowledge
You do yourself no favour making such ill-founded statements and I
urge you to stop doing this self-inflicted disservice.
Paul Davis, Hertford
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
12/09/09:Dawn,
I keep asking you this question, but you never seem to reply to it.
How many shirts do you own?
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commonsense
12/02/09: To Dawn.
Since you exclude
B are we to assume A
A: They are correct statements and God is a cruel, murdering,
sadistic git.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike 12/02/09:Hi
Dawn.
First, I must draw
your attention to two earlier posts of mine.
“This site defends everybody’s right to
believe what ever they like. The issue is, those faith positions
should be a private, not public matter and should not be preached to
children in school, nor for that matter should atheism”;
and “your belief and my belief/non
belief are private matters; neither your, nor my beliefs should have
any place in education or politics”.
The points I make
on this blog are to you and this forum, not to school children. I
strongly believe religion is false and divisive because I have
studied it, not because of a faith position; and I have no wish for
my perception of that study to become part of the school curriculum.
Your posts however, are not just to me; it seems they also get
passed on to children.
Re Islam, Apostasy
means to deny or leave the religion.
Your points on
Christmas and Easter are astounding. The Roman Catholic Church high
jacked the winter solstice celebration and allocated it to their new
religion circa 300 CE. This day had been celebrated by mankind
across the globe ever since man became aware of what appeared to be
a predictable rhythmic movement of the sun.
The Roman Catholic
Church also high jacked the spring (Vernal) equinox celebration;
also a solar celebration dating back to mans first understanding of
Astronomy. The celebrations at the Vernal equinox gave thanks to the
light finally defeating the dark; that is, the days becoming longer
than the nights. The vernal equinox is also the marker for the
astrological ages. The Sphinx at Giza faces the vernal equinox (sun
rise position at the spring equinox) and is linked to the
astrological age of Leo. All the resurrecting Gods that preceded the
Jesus character resurrected at the vernal equinox, it symbolises the
planet coming back to life; “Spring”. How quaint to find
Christianities figurehead also resurrecting at the vernal equinox.
This idea really had been done to death by the time of the Jesus
myth.
Dawn; Christianity
did not create or invent Christmas and Easter, they stole them.
Moreover they still exist today, not because of Christianity, but
because of capitalism. Capitalism simply cannot do without them.
Shareholder profit is what is being worship at Christmas and Easter,
not Jesus.
You ask how does
something exist if it was not made; you clearly do not accept
natural selection as a valid argument despite the overwhelming
evidence of its existence. Domestic dogs, cats and pigeons are a
direct result of human selection and prove beyond doubt that species
do transmutate in response to changes in their environment. If man
can evolve breeds of dogs, cats, pigeons and types of plants in a
matter of centuries; so too can nature evolve animals and plants over
millennia.
Now; you pose the
question: How is it that we are just the right distance from the
sun? You have to turn that around to comprehend the answer. The
planet is not here, just the right distance from the sun, because we
need a planet to exist on. We are here because the planet happens to
be the right distance from the sun. If it were not, we would not be
having this conversation, we would not be here. That is why there
are no people on Venus; likewise with gravity. This is known as the
“Anthropic Principle”, it suggests that we live in a universe set up
in a way that is fined tuned for life; if it were not we would not
be able to observe it. But it is not necessarily the only universe
and there could be millions of universes in a multiverse, only a few
of which are fine tuned for life and therefore sustain life. In
which case, we should not really be at all surprised to be here.
With reference to
“Eon”: Jesus did not speak in riddles, because he did not exist and
therefore never spoke at all. The bible you read is a copy of a copy
of a copy. It has be translated and mistranslated and the King James
Version, your version, was written and translated under rules of
translation laid down by King James. The oldest texts used the word
“Eon” which actually means Age, astrological age, and therefore the
quote reads “I will be with you until the end of the Age”. By
the time we get to the King James Version the word is incorrectly
translated to “time”; Along with countless other words and phrases.
You are not reading the word of God; you are reading the word of God
according to King James.
With reference to
the books, follow these links:
[Origen],
[Tertullian],
[Diabolical Mimicry Chapter XL],
[Firmicus Maternus]. Please do go to them and read the
books, you will learn all about Isis, Osiris & Horus, Dionysus,
Attis, Bachus, Orpheus, Mithras and many more; Along with countless
versions of Christ, to many to count.
One last piece of
food for thought for you; if you are of the view that the bible is
literal and the unerring word of God, you need to consider this
dilemma: The bible states quite unambiguously that God created the
universe in 6 days. This has been played around with in the past to
help square the 6,000 year bible span with the incredible age of the
earth; for example, statements like 1 god day represent a 1000X1000
earth days. But nonetheless it states “created” as in past tense,
job done, mission completed, final state. Why then is the universe
expanding, and expanding at an accelerating speed. Why are there
nebula that are stella nurseries where new stars are being born,
while at the same time old stars go supernova and die. The universe
is very much a work in progress and still growing and forming. This
is in complete contradiction to the book of genesis, but it is a
fact!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 11/02/09:Hi
Mike,
You said “I must point out a serious contradiction in your reply.
In your 1st paragraph you claim “How can God be blamed for man’s
sin? If a drunk driver kills a child can you blame God? No. It is
the fault of the driver”
Then in your 2nd you state: “I have lost a child; a teenage son. If
God had asked my permission before taking him I would not have given
it. But I can accept that He had His reason and that one day I might
know why”.
You must be able to see that these two statements are mutually
exclusive; they cannot both be correct. If one is right, the other
is by default wrong.”
Yes, I see what you mean. I lost my son through sudden illness, and
sickness is a result of sin so his death is the result of sin and I
can’t blame God. I don’t blame God. I questioned why, but I don’t
blame Him. Is that any better?
You said “Also, Islamic schools teach young children not to
befriend any but their own and that the penalty for apostasy is
death; to preach that to a child should be made a criminal offence.”
Do they really teach that? There are no words to describe how
despicable that is. But you cannot compare this kind of teaching
with a religious education of Christianity, Hinduism etc. State
schools in Britain would teach no such thing. ‘Church of England’ or
‘Roman Catholic’ Schools (the two I have experienced) would never
for one minute consider teaching that to befriend someone of another
religion is worthy of death. They would teach quite the contrary so
is that a point to me?!
You said “Seriously Dawn, your Jesus did not exist.”
Ah, but is this not brainwashing? Is this the message you wish to
get across to the children? In other words you wish to teach the
religion of atheism, even if it is by the back door? And if we have
no religious education then must we delete Christmas seeing the
children would not understand its meaning? Do we permanently rename
it Xmas to do away with Christ, and teach children it is purely a
time of commercialism and tinsel. Do we erase traditional carol
singing from Britain? If there is no religious education then carols
make no sense to children. They may as well stand in the street
singing nursery rhymes. Or do you think that is what school children
are doing anyway? Do we call Easter Sunday “chocolate egg day”? Is
our British heritage really sinking so far?
You said “With reference to Religious “Indoctrination” as far as
faith schools go and Religious Education for community schools. It
is wrong because you have no empirical evidence to show that the
world works in the way you state. The reason you have no evidence is
because there is none. The world cannot possibly work in the manner
you promote, because what you claim is physically impossible and
disproves itself. You can have faith that it is true, but that does
not make it true. Therefore we are lying to children in our
schools.”
Here I don’t see what you mean. Where is your evidence to say there
is no God? Sufficient evidence for me that there IS a God is
creation. When is there ever a creation without a creator? If I were
to tell you that the house you live in wasn’t actually made by
anyone but it started out as a teaspoon of cement and over a long
period of time made itself into bricks which joined together
perfectly along with other materials such as glass……….the notion is
utterly crazy. But you are claiming imaginations which are far more
ridiculous. How does gravity come about? How come we are just the
right amount of distance away from the sun for us to feel its warmth
and receive its light without being frazzled or iced to death? Take
the complexities of the human eye. Do you seriously have enough
faith to believe the universe evolved from nowhere? And holds itself
together by chance? Think about it again. Do you seriously have that
amount of faith in ‘accidents’ and ‘chance’? I cannot fathom how you
can possibly have such a faith. And yet you want your faith passed
onto every child in Britain, because by wishing to remove religious
education from school you are sending out the message that there is
no God.
You said “A prominent miss translation in the New Testament is
when the character Jesus replies to a question: “How long will you
be with us lord” he replies “I will be with you until the end of
time” The actual world was Eon and refers to an astrological age.
The age the author referred to was the age of Pisces. Therefore “I
will be with you until the world moves into the Age of Aquarius”. So
you see Dawn, its all astrology, and its all a story.”
That is purely your interpretation. I would suggest that Jesus
didn’t speak in riddles that the majority of people wouldn’t
understand. If time means the Age of Aquarius then why didn’t He
qualify that? So the bible would read “I will be with you until the
world moves into the Age of Aquarius”. The writers intended the
bible to be read for generation after generation. It was read to be
understood 2000 years later. Not to study astrology before one could
understand it. Regarding the fish….the Greek word ichthys for
"fish". Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter. This is an acrostic for
'Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour.'
I have never heard of these books you mention. How come the Bible is
by far the bestselling book of all time? As such don’t you think
school children should be educated about it?
It would seem that while some schools have now banned Christmas
nativity plays in favour of pantomimes so as not to offend those of
other faiths, you are wanting to go the whole hog and actively teach
the religion of atheism, which is also a faith. Is that so?
Kind Regards,
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 11/02/09:
Hi Paul D,
At the outset I would let you know that I am talking about both club
and church. I run an out of school club where we teach the bible
alongside having other activities. And before you start criticising
me about being deceitful it is held in my church. The time I
mentioned about church was for a Sunday morning.
You say “The rest of us are having a discussion about why your dead
god on a stick is nonsense”.
It appears I’m not in on the discussion. What you say is totally
disrespectful, and you know full well that to Christians you are
openly being blasphemous. Now answer me honestly. Is this what you
would like to walk into school and tell teachers and children alike?
You said “It also means that your god knows what will happen
tomorrow, and if your god knows what will happen tomorrow it means
we have no choice in what happens tomorrow; so much for your free
will. Free will cannot exist if someone knows what will happen as
you are powerless to do anything other than what has been seen. So,
either your god is omniscient and there is no free will, or there is
free will and your god is not omniscient.”
No this doesn’t follow at all. I can know that my disobedient and
rebellious child (just for example) plans to visit peers who are
putting pressure on him to join in their anti-social activities. I
can stop him by chaining him in his bedroom or I can allow him out
to find out the hard way that he will only eventually get caught out
by higher authority and that he would have done better to listen to
me! I’m not powerless, but I’m not a dictator mother. I give him
free will so he can learn to live within society.
You said “Tell me Dawn, if there was no such thing as the bible,
would you be evil?”
Yes, I would be sinful in God’s Presence. But I can read in the
bible how Jesus came to cleanse me from my sin and as I have
accepted His offer of mercy God sees me as clean. Not because I am
necessarily a more moral or kind person than you are, but because I
have humbled myself before Him and asked forgiveness. And He has
freely given it. Now I still sin. That is what I mean by individual
sins. I still tell untruths, am still selfish etc. etc. but my
burden of sin has been rolled away once and for all. I can’t really
explain more than that. You have obviously done plenty of research.
Perhaps you can give a more lucid explanation!
You said “Exodus 20 v 23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do
not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold. Verses 23-24
are about idols and altars. Yes, remember that one about not making
idols.”
Do you have any gods more important than the Creator God.? Of course
you do. Your job, your bank balance, your home. We can all fall into
the trap of worshipping these more than God.
You said "Best you throw away all those crucifixes. They are idols.
Not that you have a clue what you actually believe in being the
salad-bar variety of Christian."
I don’t worship crucifixes and don’t possess any. Exactly the
opposite. Jesus is not on a cross but alive in heaven. But I would
not scorn those Christians who do make much of a crucifix because
they see BEYOND what it is made of and remember the Person Who died
there for them.
You said "Now look at Exodus ch.21…. "
Read in context these are laws for the Israelites. They also had to
make animal sacrifices as you well know. Jesus came to give His Life
as the ultimate sacrifice so animal sacrifice was done away with.
Read Hebrews 7 v 27. Jesus came to do away with the old law and
offer grace, whilst at the same time stressing the most important
commandments.
You said: "I do teach bible stories but equally important is the
life application and how these stories are relevant for today’s
society and in particular the individual lives of the kids."
Here's your opportunity to give me examples of precisely what
stories and their relevance to today's world."
We have been looking at the story of Samuel and linking it with the
call of others in the bible such as the disciples and the apostle
Paul. We talked about Isaiah and his words “here I am; send me” How
he made himself available. I asked them to think of those words
every morning to help them remember to be willing to help other
children at school and family members. Sure I could mention plenty
more but I doubt you’re really interested so there is just one
example.
You said “I rather feel that you must be living a terrible existence
waiting for death and wanting others to join you in that wait for
death.”
To the contrary. A Christian realises that this life is fleeting and
death is only the beginning. But I don’t know why you call
Christianity a death cult. I am thankful for each day and live my
life with joy and peace; yet with tribulations and sadness just like
anyone else. But I can still look forward to life after death.
You said “I don't want eternity.”
No I don’t suppose you do. But we don’t always get what we want.
You said “History has shown us ….that when people die they are
forever and eternally dead.”
How?
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 11/02/09:Hello
Mike,
I started a reply to you and then got sidetracked when I saw other
posters. I promise to reply to you ASAP!
To so called Commonsense
You said “I fail to see how ...God entity be kind, loving and
forgiving. Why, because he doesn’t seem to be in Australia right
now? So; is it that he does not really exist, or is he willing to
let people die when all he need do is make it rain?”
As I have said to other posters before we need to get out of our
little box and realise that we are not God. Why should we try to
control Him and tell Him what He should or should not be doing? What
gives us the right? It’s all very well to say ‘if I was God I
would……’. But we are not and so we can’t.
Sincerely,
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
11/02/09:HiDawn,
You replied: "If a
parent were to tell a child that if he runs across a busy road he
may well be killed then would you call that parent a despicable
tyrant? No, of course not. You would realise he was protecting his
child from potential danger. Not only does the book of Revelation
teach of coming judgement, it also teaches of the wonders of heaven
which incidentally not one of us deserves. To sum it up it is a book
of warning and love. It is your choice which you believe. I don’t
preach to children. I talk with them."
My children can see cars, and no one is judging them. A parent who
tells them to look both ways before crossing is being responsible
and caring.
Telling children a horror story about a day when their young
innocent lives will be judged and all will be found wanting is
mental abuse as it immediately implants the idea into their young
malleable imaginations that they have already done something wrong
and they have no way of righting this wrong they didn't even know
they had done because "not one of us deserves". It's not a book of
warning or of love. It is a book designed by your death cult to make
people bow down and do as they are told lest they should be struck
down by your tyrant god on some imaginary "judgement" day.
A parent who tells their children this story is a nut committing
mental abuse and should be kept far and away from young children's
minds.
If your god is omniscient, as you claim, and St John the Divine saw
the future it matters not what you say anyway. The world's coming
history has already been written and nothing can change it because
that is the way your tyrant god made it.
If you believe that it can be changed and judgement day can be
avoided then St John the Divine was just another frothing madman
with a death fixation.
My own view is that St John "the Divine" has the wrong epithet. It
should be St John "the Death Fixated Frothing Hallucinating Madman".
By the way, you're a Christian and believe in Jesus and his
teachings, right? How many shirts do you own?
Paul Davis, Hertford
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name
11/02/209:
We'll see! If you are right and I worship a fictional character, I
will simply die having lived a full, moral, comforted life, filled
with purpose (if u right a dum purpose) but never the less purpose.
However if I am right, you are in a bit of trouble.
Our trouble , why we will never be able to agree (no agree is the
wrong word, cant think of the right one right now), is a
fundamental difference of opinion on this life and how important it
is. You think thats all there is, I see it as only the beginning. I
do not wish for death nor do I fear it, it's just one of those
things that are part of life.
I feel I may have come on a bit strong "ranting" as it were, but I
stumbled on this site and my curiosity was arroused. I wondered how
so many people can feel so strongly about er nothing, athiests
believe in nothing right, big unexplainable bang, everything or
whatever.
It was wrong of me to say your lives are empty etc, this argument
often fails and for good reason. although I meant spiritually, you
know something missing despite having it all. I took the chance it
would hit home somewhere, after all my intention was not to attack
but help.
Mr Davis you said you read up on current science, what kind, I only
ask as I myself am a scientist.
I have a few more comments about things stated on this site.
Oh and Mr Cox if you thought I meant geographically you kinda missed
the bus.
1. No where in the bible does it say celebrate the birth of Christ,
you are correct Christmas is a throw back to something else,
integrated by certain religious bodies to help early conversion.
Not a good thing, anyway you see how well that held up, total
commercialisation bull dust.
2. Jesus did NOT come to make anything here on earth better,
wonderful, peaceful etc, He came so we may be forgivin our sin and
have eternal life.
3. What I meant by distasteful, you need only tune into MTV to see
what I mean, rising crime, swearing, violence all around us everday,
and most just carrying on thinking, it's fine we have a right to do
what we want.
I hope Mr Davis your children aren't daughters who have to grow up
with role models like the pussy cat dolls and idols winners,
wandering why dont I look like that, oh well the guys will sleep
with me anyway.
Yuk, I think the music industry needs to be checked whether you a
Christian or a which you have to notice something very wrong going
on there.
4. Jesus said drink of this wine , eat of this bread, do this in
remembrance of me, not eat or die like Mithra watshisface.
Commonsense says "I fail to see how they can be correct and the God
entity be kind, loving and forgiving."
You are missing the big picture, trials and tribulations are part of
living on earth, you have only your narrow little world view God
knows all I, a master plan that unfortunately we don't always
understand. You have to work hard for that stuff, have you not
heard, nothing in life is free.
Thanks for taking the time to read my point of view, in the mean
while, God bless, ha ha!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis
10/02/09: To "02/10/09 No Name"
You said: "Jesus died on the cross for our sins, not to make us
perfect but to save us from our imperfections."
He was born of a virgin on December 25th, and his birth was attended
by shepherds.
He was considered a great travelling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
His followers were promised immortality.
He performed miracles.
He sacrificed himself for world peace.
He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb
and the Lion.
He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the
"Logos," "Redeemer," "Saviour" and "Messiah."
His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day".
His principal festival is what was later to become Easter.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which he said,
"He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he
may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
His annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical
atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration.
His name? MITHRA.
And his story came before your Jesus. Your Jesus is just the latest
in a long line of "Saviours who died for our sins - who died and
rose again". Your Jesus is just a plagiarism of a previous myth
which the "holy followers" stole and changed the name from MITHRA to
Jesus. Seems dying and coming back to life was quite common in those
days. Quite a party trick...
You said: "Our time on earth is fleeting, there were no promises
of rose gardens and happiness, there is only one purpose to all our
lives and that is to glorify God."
Why does your god need glorifying? Oh wait. Let's look at some
others who like/liked to be glorified. Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler,
Pol Pot, Stalin, Sun Jung-Il, and all the other tyrants. If there is
one thing we can be certain of in this life it is that when someone
wants to be glorified he is a tyrant.
You said: "Denounce Jesus our Saviour at your own peril."
Nice threat. Unfortunately, there's this thing about dead people -
they don't do much. I have this general rule in life that when dead
people threaten me I don't worry. Now, when living people threaten
me, that's a different kettle of fish and thankfully it has happened
rarely in my life, but dead people don't bother me.
You said: " Rant and rave all you want"
I think we can all see who is ranting and raving. The rest of us are
having a discussion about why your dead god on a stick is nonsense
and should be kicked out of schools or put in the correct class.
That class being "Fiction".
You said: "about the "indoctrination" of children but look what
has happened to you, no one showed you the way and now you are lost,
scared angry people who cant/wont understand what's happening around
you, your lives are empty and so you try filling them by breaking
down those who would believe."
Actually people did show me "the way", and I rejected it for the
nonsense it so clearly is. I am not lost. I know exactly where I am.
I am not scared. I am not angry. I am dismayed that people like you
think they have a right to try and impose their death cult on
non-critical minds. I have two growing lovely children who fill my
life with happiness on a daily basis and I have a loving wife who I
love dearly. My life is far from empty.
I can't help but feeling that it is you that is lost, scared, angry
and living an empty life. It is well known by psychiatrists that
their patients regularly claim it is others who are suffering from
what they themselves are actually suffering and is called
"transference".
You said: "What a sad existence to live only for now, only for
yourself,"
On the contrary. My life is full of happiness. That must really
stick in your craw that I don't subscribe to your death cult but I
am still a happy person. I rather feel that you must be living a
terrible existence waiting for death and wanting others to join you
in that wait for death. You must be the highlight of the party.
You said: "what do you care if children should receive the Word,
it does not effect you and according to your own beliefs has no
lasting effect past this life."
It does affect THIS life however, and we are living NOW even if you
wish to be dead. It matters to me that children's lives are not
filled with vile garbage. Garbage that prompts you to comes on a
public forum and try to tell people they are lost, scared, and
angry, and spout death if they do not glorify your god.
You said: "Do you think religion is to blame for the woes of the
world, has it escaped your notice that the more we move away from
God, the sicker and more distasteful our lives have become."
My life is neither sick nor distasteful yet I don't subscribe to
your death cult. Of course we can look at history to see what life
was like when your death cult had control - witch hunts, massive
wealth held by the church, and crusades. Yes, that was such a better
life back then when the average life expectancy was scant more than
40 years and sickness and illness were rife and unchecked.
Our modern world is so cruel allowing people to live twice as long,
giving them a chance to live a decent quality of life through reward
for their efforts, giving them medicines to cure their ills and
schools to educate their children to the delights of life. Yes, what
a terrible world we live in......
Ideological/religious wars still happen now of course, but maybe one
day when people no longer subscribe to ancient god myths we might
start moving away from this.
You said: "No earthly goods will fill that gnawing feeling you
have when you are alone and have nothing but your own thoughts to
comfort you."
But I don't have a gnawing feeling. When I am alone I like to read
up on current science. My own thoughts don't need to comfort me
because I don't require comforting. I'm quite comfortable. So, I
don't really understand what you're getting at. Maybe it is that
transference thing again.
You said "A reasonable person would peruse both sides of the
argument before deciding the truth for themselves."
I have perused "both" sides of the argument. In fact I have gone
further than that and studied other religions and ideologies too. I
have tried to understand as many sides of the argument as my time
will allow, not just your death cult. Through my studies it has
become clear to me that your Jesus myth is absolute hog wash and so
are many other religions. The only thing I came across in my studies
that I felt warranted further study was Buddhism. Not the religion,
but the claimed life and teachings of Siddartha Gotama. I think a
lot of what he is claimed to have said is absolutely valid and will
forever remain valid, but I am not a Buddhist.
You said: "Give Jesus a try, invite him into your heart, you only
have eternity to lose."
I don't want eternity. I accept that I live and one day will die.
History has shown us (lies and god myths apart) that when people die
they are forever and eternally dead. I expect nothing more for
myself. My ego is not such that it cannot bear the thought that it
will one day cease to be.
But maybe this final sentence of your ranting actually shows us what
motivates you. You're scared of dying and in your fear your ego
clings to anything, including ludicrous god myths and promises of a
life after death. I don't know how we can help you over come this
fear as it is really something that each and every one of us has to
come to terms with ourselves.
For my own part, knowing that I have a finite existence gives me
impetus to learn as much as I can in what time I do have and
actually compels me to work harder and make better use of my time. I
do not see how kneeling and praying to pie in the sky is a good use
of my time.
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name:
10/02/09: Re (Dawn 08/02/09: Lol!! How am I meant to answer all
this?! Thanks for your comments guys)
Information on
Frank Morison
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/stone.htm
Information on Josh McDowell
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html
As suspected, two known Christian apologists who write apologetics
for the under educated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commonsense
10/02/09:
First: total
support for this site. Religion should have no place in school.
Second: To all
religious types:
You state God is
Omnipotent (all powerful), Omniscient (All seeing and knowing) and
Omnipresent (ever present everywhere).
There can only be
two possible conclusions from the above statements:
A: They are
correct statements and God is a cruel, murdering, sadistic git.
Or
B: They are false
statements and no such entity exists.
I fail to see how
they can be correct and the God entity be kind, loving and
forgiving.
Why, because he
doesn’t seem to be in Australia right now?
So; is it that he
does not really exist, or is he willing to let people die when all
he need do is make it rain?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cox 10/02/09:
RE no name 10/02/09
“has it escaped your notice that the more we move away from God,
the sicker and more distasteful our lives have become”
Now, correct me if I am wrong but, the temple of Yahweh was in
Jerusalem, Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, Muhammad ascended to
Allah in Jerusalem. So God pretty much made base camp in Jerusalem.
So, the closer we get to God “geographically” the more dangerous and
perilous life becomes. The people of Jerusalem have to be the most
religious on earth, and Jerusalem has to be the most violent place
on earth.
I would rather live in a Godless Britain, than a Holy Jerusalem!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 10/02/09:
Jesus died on the cross for our sins, not to make us perfect but to
save us from our imperfections. Our time on earth is fleeting, there
were no promises of rose gardens and happiness, there is only one
purpose to all our lives and that is to glorify God. Denounce Jesus
our Saviour at your own peril. Rant and rave all you want about the
"indoctrination" of children but look what has happened to you, no
one showed you the way and now you are lost, scared angry people who
cant/wont understand what's happening around you, your lives are
empty and so you try filling them by breaking down those who would
believe. What a sad existence to live only for now, only for
yourself, what do you care if children should receive the Word, it does
not effect you and according to your own beliefs has no lasting
effect past this life. Do you think religion is to blame for the
woes of the world, has it escaped your notice that the more we move
away from God, the sicker and more distasteful our lives have
become. No earthly goods will fill that gnawing feeling you have
when you are alone and have nothing but your own thoughts to comfort
you. A reasonable person would peruse both sides of the argument
before deciding the truth for themselves. Give Jesus a try, invite
him into your heart, you only have eternity to lose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis 10/02/09:
Dear Dawn,
You said this: "War is generally a result of man’s greed for
power or due to anger. How can God be blamed for man’s sin? If a
drunk driver kills a child can you blame God? No. It is the fault of
the drive. Sadly there is an innocent victim. It is the same
with war. As a result of man’s sin innocent people will die. Its
cause and effect; so several of us could all get together and pray
that there will be no war victims yet man is given a choice and he
chooses to war." A drunk driver who inadvertently runs over
someone is not analogous with someone bombing people’s homes
deliberately. In the first instance the drunk driver has no
intention of killing anyone misguided as his action may be. In the
second instance the person sets out with the intention to kill.
There is no comparison here at all.
You are admitting here quite clearly that praying does not work when
mans will is involved. Or wait, maybe the answer to their prayers is
"No", and your god wants them to die. Or maybe it is "Wait"; for
what exactly? Wait until they are dead and then can will tell them
the answer was "No"?
You say your god is omnipotent (and omniscient - the implications of
which I will address later) yet his "powers" suddenly evaporate in
the face of mans will. Or simply he decided not to exercise his
power and is happy to stand by and watch innocents die despite their
prayer’s; which makes him not only omnipotent but malevolent.
Malevolent because despite the fact he COULD do something he DOES
NOT do anything.
My choice is not to wage war but, according to you, my choice is
ignored in the face of someone else’s choice to point a gun at me and
kill me. Seems your god allows "mans will" to win out as long as he
is the aggressor. If you are peaceful your will doesn't amount to a
hill of beans.
Please understand I have no desire to intrude upon the grief you
have felt towards the loss of your son but you have chosen to use
him in your argument thus I have no choice but to address the
argument as given.
You said: "I have lost a child; a teenage son. If God had asked
my permission before taking him I would not have given it." Your
god never asks for our permission. Your god lays down laws and if we
do not observe them we are punished.
You said: "But I can accept that He had His reason and that one
day I might know why." The "greater purpose" argument; already
addressed below. It doesn't justify the death of your son. This
behaviour is indistinguishable from dictatorship.
You said: "He gave him to me in the first place and I am grateful
for the years I had him. Many lives have been affected by his death
so possibly ultimately it has somehow been for good." Many
people who live under dictatorships make this same argument. Again,
this is indistinguishable from someone thanking their "great leader"
for allowing them to live in the first place despite the fact that
he malevolently allowed pain to pervade your life and that of
others. Presumably your son did not have any choice in whether he
should die so that others might feel good.
You said: "True, there is absolutely no way I would have let him
die but I can still submit to Someone “Whose Way is perfect”. I
don’t see God as a dictator for taking a child who belongs to Him to
heaven." And through the suffering that loss has caused me I hope I
have been of some small help to others who are suffering. We need to
‘think out of the box.’ We can’t order God to bow down to us and
show His Power at a whim. Yes He is omnipotent and also omniscient
which cannot be said for any of us”. And here you introduce
omniscience. Omniscience is the ability to know everything that has
happened and everything that will happen. This means on the day your
god created the world he knew that one day your son would die and
you and others would suffer pain as a result. He knew Hitler would
march across Europe and enslave and murder millions. He knew Pol Pot
would create the killing fields. He knew the witch hunts and
crusades would occur. He knew Sadam Hussein would unleash mustard
gas upon the Iranians. He knew all of the pain that was to come, and
he still went ahead and created the world. Again, your god is
clearly malevolent, and in his malevolence he is perfectly
malevolent. Anyone who would deliberately create a world knowing the
pain and torment it would bring to countless billions does not rank
high on my list of people I want to know.
It also means that your god knows what will happen tomorrow, and if
your god knows what will happen tomorrow it means we have no choice
in what happens tomorrow; so much for your free will. Free will
cannot exist if someone knows what will happen as you are powerless
to do anything other than what has been seen. So, either your god is
omniscient and there is no free will, or there is free will and your
god is not omniscient.
You said: "No it isn’t out of fear that I want religion taught in
schools. It’s part of an all round education." It would be nice
if it was an "all round education" but teaching one religion to the
exclusion of all others is not an "all round" education. You make it
quite clear below that you don't want any other religion unless it
preaches your Mithras imitator - Jesus. That is hardly all round and
you expose your real agenda right there.
You said: "I do teach bible stories but equally important is the
life application and how these stories are relevant for today’s
society and in particular the individual lives of the kids."
Yes, this argument is posited by many Christians, but none of them,
to a man, can ever be precise about what stories and how they are
relevant to this society and individual lives. They all end up
saying "Jesus died for your sins" so praise him and do as we tell
you. Here's your opportunity to give me examples of precisely what
stories and their relevance to today's world.
You said: "Discussion is actively encouraged and if children wish
to spend the whole time on questions and discussion then that is
first class. The story can wait for another time or we can drift
onto another track. Admittedly in school I guess there is a
curriculum to follow and so it would not be possible. A teacher
could only point to an out of school club through lack of time."
Children aren't noted for their critical reasoning abilities. I
would submit that the questions children ask you are far and away
nothing like the questions you are being asked here. I posit that
your "discussion" amounts to twisting children’s simple enquiries
into convincing them they are more than just stories. ie.
Indoctrination.
You said: "No I don’t teach other religions. In fact I don’t
teach religion at all. I teach about Jesus and the bible. So I’m not
going to teach other “belief systems” are as valid as mine unless
they are pointing to Jesus." ie. You’re biased, have an agenda,
and you're a preacher. This being an example of the "all round"
education you want to see in schools.
You said "Hinduism, Buddhism, and all those other isms you
mention don’t point people to Jesus." And they are all wrong on
that basis? All these other religions are wrong because they don't
mention your Jesus?
You said: "Every week I stress it is the children’s decision. I
can’t make a decision for them. God looks at the heart of every
individual”. This is the decision you are giving these children:
"You can choose what ever you like children, but if you don't choose
my god then he will know". ie. "no matter what you think children,
god knows what you're thinking. You cannot hide from my god and he
will know when you don't believe in him". That is quite a sick
attitude and thought to put into a child’s mind.
If my children ever came home and said a teacher had taught him this
I would be down to the school and seeking to get that teacher kicked
out. This is mental assault. How dare you think you have the right
to guilt trip non-critical minds into thinking that if they choose
other than your god that he will know and through the stories you
have told them they will have pain and suffering come to visit them.
You said: "In fact I actively encourage them not to believe
anything I say just through a desire to please me. Yes, they are
fully aware of atheism and agnosticism. I would mention that most
weeks as well so they have a healthy all round view." As far as
I am aware, atheisms and agnosticism don't teach Jesus. You have
already told us you don't teach any "-ism" that doesn't point to
Jesus.
You said: "You ask “Why would non-Christian parents be taking
their children to your Christian church?” The club is talked about
at school because it is fun. So kids ask their parents if they can
go." No, you distinctly said church Dawn. I'll quote you from
below: Dated 01/02/09 "We had such fun in church this morning. I
just wish you could have been there." “We had so much fun in CHURCH
this morning”; so time to make your mind up Dawn. Is it a church, a
club, or what?
You said: "We have parents come in and look around and ask
questions, and there must be something in the atmosphere that
assures them their kids are in safe hands. I encourage the children
to talk at home about what they have learned at club. One child said
her school friends laughed at her for going to a church club on a
Saturday evening to which she replied that they had never been so
they didn’t know what they were missing. Perhaps it’s the same for
you? You have never entered a Christian church or never had
Christian friends so you don’t know how much you are missing out?"
Dawn, I'm not a wide-eyed little child in your church/club/whatever
you want to claim it is, so don't insult my intelligence with this
silly line of argument. You haven't been to Hindu worship, Buddhist
worship, or any other "-ism" worship. There's a whole world out
there that you don't know about and are missing out on and if only
you went then you might find that your current beliefs are nonsense.
See, your "argument" works both ways, yet you ask us to do something
you do not do yourself.
Your bible is what you follow. I have access to your bible. I don't
need to go to your church/club/whatever to make my own decisions on
its validity. I'm quite capable of seeing the bible for the
plagiarised nonsense it is, and the contradictions that it contains.
It doesn't matter how nice you are, or your church/club/whatever. It
doesn't make your bible or your beliefs in that bible correct or
valid.
Tell me Dawn, if there was no such thing as the bible, would you be
evil?
You said: "I am meaning that through Adam sin itself entered the
world thus shattering the perfect world God made." You're not
reading the same bible as me Dawn. Did you forget the serpent in the
Garden of Eden? Who made that serpent Dawn? This serpent was the one
that convinced Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Sin incarnate in the form of a serpent. Created by your god who knew
(due to being omniscient) that it would convince Eve and then Adam
to eat from the tree.
Seems to me sin existed alongside Adam and he was tricked by the
serpent (who was punished to crawl on its belly for eternity). Adam
didn't introduce sin at all. He succumbed to a wily serpent who
tricked his innocent mind. Just like you seek to trick all the
children into believing they can choose something other than a god
that can see into their hearts.
You said: "There is a difference between ‘sin’ as an umbrella and
individual ‘sins’." Please explain this distinction, as Adam
sinned, according to you, and he was an individual.
You said: "I wouldn’t try to ‘convert’ anyone to ‘Christianity’.
It is a religion. And of course Christians do interpret many bible
passages in many different ways. But ultimately every Christian
agrees that Jesus came to bring us salvation and so we desire to
tell people of Jesus." If you're not trying to convert anyone
why tell them about your Jesus at all? Your words tell us that you
want people to become believers but you don't want to convert
anyone. This is word play of the poorest quality.
You said "About the 613 commandments. We are talking about the
bible here. Not traditions. The writers of the bible were inspired
to write the 10 we know so well, just as Moses was given 10 by the
Hand of God." You haven't actually read your own bible have you
Dawn. You just regurgitate the stories relayed by your masters.
The 613 commandments are not traditions. They are laws. Try reading
your bible again. Start at Exodus 20 and continue from there. In
ch.20 verse 1-17 your god tells Moses and his people the first 10
commandments. The next part is the reaction to his presence. Verses
23-24 are about idols and altars. Yes, remember that one about not
making idols. Best you throw away all those crucifixes. They are
idols. Not that you have a clue what you actually believe in being
the salad-bar variety of Christian.
Now look at Exodus ch.21. What does the first verse say, Dawn? Hmmm?
Does it say, here are your traditions? No, it says god tells Moses
""These are the laws you are to set before them:" And what comes
after that verse Dawn? Hmmm? Verse after verse of LAWS.
Like I said elsewhere. You're not talking to a non-critical
wide-eyed little child who doesn't do the research to see if what
you're saying is correct or not. You're talking to someone who has
invested a lot of their life investigating claims made by the
religious and has done a lot of study.
You said: "I did write more to you but decided to delete it!"
You probably realised after you wrote it that it was even thinner in
substance that what you allowed to be posted.
I notice you had nothing to say about famine. Why is that?
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike 08/02/09:Hi
Dawn
I must say
that it is very brave of you to field answers to so many questions.
I am deeply sorry to hear of your personal loss; however, I must
point out a serious contradiction in your reply.
In your 1st paragraph you
claim:“How can God be blamed for
man’s sin? If a drunk driver kills a child can you blame God? No. It
is the fault of the driver”
Then in your 2nd you state:“I
have lost a child; a teenage son. If God had asked my permission
before taking him I would not have given it. But I can accept that
He had His reason and that one day I might know why”.
You must be able to see that these two
statements are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be correct. If
one is right, the other is by default wrong.
With reference to Religious
“Indoctrination” as far as faith schools go and Religious Education
for community schools. It is wrong because you have no empirical
evidence to show that the world works in the way you state. The
reason you have no evidence is because there is none. The world
cannot possibly work in the manner you promote, because what you
claim is physically impossible and disproves itself. You can have
faith that it is true, but that does not make it true. Therefore we
are lying to children in our schools.
Now I do not suppose that the book of
revelations is covered in community schools; and through research,
interviews and email conversations with community school teachers I
know that most community schools would drop religious education in
an instance if the Government changed the law. But I suspect the
book of revelations, along with eternal damnation for no belief or
denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, is preached in faith
schools, particularly Catholic ones. That is, without question,
metal child abuse. Also, Islamic schools teach young children not to
befriend any but their own and that the penalty for apostasy is
death; to preach that to a child should be made a criminal offence.
I must once again remind you, ancient
literature abounds with characters that display all the
characteristics of your figure head Jesus. Characters that existed
in the human mind set centuries before Christianity. By order of the
Catholic Church all literature about these characters was burnt,
along with the people who believed in them. We know of them today
because the church did not burn their own polemics against these
Gnostic and Pagan God Childs. I can recommend “Origen against
Celsus” volumes 1 to 8,
[link]
Tertullian’s “An Answer to Jews”,
“The Apology” and “On the Resurrection of the Flesh”
[link] and Firmicus Maternus “The Error of the Pagan Religions”
[link]. In
these early Christian works you will find all the characters that
existed prior to Jesus that caused the church discomfort because
these characters all did and suffered the same things as their
Jesus.
Tertullian attempts to explain this
problem away by stating that the devil must have gone back in time
and planted the stories there in order to discredit Jesus in the
future.
[link chapter XL] Seriously Dawn, your Jesus did not exist.
One further fact which discredits the
existence of a historical Jesus is that his story begins at the
start of the astrological age of Pisces. He is simply a new God for
the new Age. When we were in the age of Taurus the bull the Persian
world worshiped Mithras, a religion that revolved around the image
of Mithras sacrificing a bull. Then we entered the age of Aries the
ram; Persia was a spent force and the Israelite Kingdoms reigned in
the Levant, the Rams horn and sacrificing sheep symbolised Judaism.
Then we entered the Age of Pisces the fish and the Jesus story was
born; Christian tradition is awash with references to fish.
A prominent miss translation in the New
Testament is when the character Jesus replies to a question: “How
long will you be with us lord” he replies “I will be with you until
the end of time” The actual word was Eon and refers to an
astrological age. The age the author referred to was the age of
Pisces. Therefore “I will be with you until the world moves into the
Age of Aquarius”. So you see Dawn, its all astrology, and its all a
story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 08/02/09:
Hi Paul,
War is generally a result of man’s greed for power or due to anger.
How can God be blamed for man’s sin? If a drunk driver kills a child
can you blame God? No. It is the fault of the driver. Sadly there is
an innocent victim. It is the same with war. As a result of man’s
sin innocent people will die. It’s cause and effect. So several of
us could all get together and pray that there will be no war
victims yet man is given a choice and he chooses to war.
I have lost a child; a teenage son. If God had asked my permission
before taking him I would not have given it. But I can accept that
He had His reason and that one day I might know why. He gave him to
me in the first place and I am grateful for the years I had him.
Many lives have been affected by his death so possibly ultimately it
has somehow been for good. True, there is absolutely no way I would
have let him die but I can still submit to Someone “Whose Way is
perfect”. I don’t see God as a dictator for taking a child who
belongs to Him to heaven. And through the suffering that loss has
caused me I hope I have been of some small help to others who are
suffering. We need to ‘think out of the box.’ We can’t order God to
bow down to us and show His Power at a whim. Yes He is omnipotent
and also omniscient which cannot be said for any of us.
No it isn’t out of fear that I want religion taught in schools. It’s
part of an all round education.
I do teach bible stories but equally important is the life
application and how these stories are relevant for today’s society
and in particular the individual lives of the kids. Discussion is
actively encouraged and if children wish to spend the whole time on
questions and discussion then that is first class. The story can
wait for another time or we can drift onto another track. Admittedly
in school I guess there is a curriculum to follow and so it would
not be possible. A teacher could only point to an out of school club
through lack of time.
No I don’t teach other religions. In fact I don’t teach religion at
all. I teach about Jesus and the bible. So I’m not going to teach
other “belief systems” are as valid as mine unless they are pointing
to Jesus. Hinduism, Buddhism, and all those other isms you mention
don’t point people to Jesus. Every week I stress it is the
children’s decision. I can’t make a decision for them. God looks at
the heart of every individual. In fact I actively encourage them not
to believe anything I say just through a desire to please me! Yes,
they are fully aware of atheism and agnosticism. I would mention
that most weeks as well so they have a healthy all round view. For 2
years I had a Hindu girl in my group who rarely missed a week. She
was made every bit as welcome as everyone else. I also had a child
who was firmly indoctrinated with the staunch views of his atheistic
father. Again he was willingly accepted and ended up being one of my
most enthusiastic helpers! I fully acknowledge that
it isn’t always the Christians who are the most thoughtful or
helpful. Not at all.
You ask “Why would non-Christian parents be taking their children to
your Christian church?” The club is talked about at school because
it is fun. So kids ask their parents if they can go. We have parents
come in and look around and ask questions, and there must be
something in the atmosphere that assures them their kids are in safe
hands. I encourage the children to talk at home about what they have
learned at club. One child said her school friends laughed at her
for going to a church club on a Saturday evening to which she
replied that they had never been so they didn’t know what they were
missing. Perhaps it’s the same for you? You have never entered a
Christian church or never had Christian friends so you don’t know
how much you are missing out?
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 08/02/09:
Lol!! How am I meant to answer all this?! Thanks for your comments
guys.
To no name…
If a parent were to tell a child that if he runs across a busy road
he may well be killed then would you call that parent a despicable
tyrant? No, of course not. You would realise he was protecting his
child from potential danger. Not only does the book of Revelation
teach of coming judgement, it also teaches of the wonders of heaven
which incidentally not one of us deserves. To sum it up it is a book
of warning and love. It is your choice which you believe. I don’t
preach to children. I talk with them.
To Paul D,
I am meaning that through Adam sin itself entered the world thus
shattering the perfect world God made. There is a difference between
‘sin’ as an umbrella and individual ‘sins’.
I wouldn’t try to ‘convert’ anyone to ‘Christianity’. It is a
religion. And of course Christians do interpret many bible passages
in many different ways. But ultimately every Christian agrees that
Jesus came to bring us salvation and so we desire to tell people of
Jesus.
About the 613 commandments. We are talking about the bible here. Not
traditions. The writers of the bible were inspired to write the 10
we know so well, just as Moses was given 10 by the Hand of God.
I did write more to you but decided to delete it!
To No name
I’ve just looked through my bookshelves and seem to have mislaid one
of the three. But I have Frank Morison with “Who moved the stone?”;
also Josh McDowell with “the resurrection factor”. Josh McDowell was
at uni when he decided to examine the resurrection in order to
disprove it. However he became a Christian after he found evidence
for it, not against it. His book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”
makes more heavy reading than the other two.
Hi Mike:
You say the religious indoctrination of children concerns you. It is
good to be genuinely concerned for children. But how is religious
education a “mental form of child abuse with an unbelievably selfish
motive on behalf of the indoctrinator” as it says on the site
homepage. What is selfish and abusive in telling children about God
Who loves them, and the bible which is full of such wisdom?
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis 04/09/09:
Dear Dawn,
You said this: "It is because of Adam’s sin the world is in such
a mess."
So, what you're saying is that because Adam questioned your god that
everyone who lives after Adam is punished? ie. the sins of the
fathers will be suffered by their children.
Carefully forgetting that Jesus renounced this "law". For someone
who claims to have read the Bible you clearly didn't read it very
well. He said "The sins of the fathers shall no longer punish their
children". So, really, your "It's Adam's fault" is more of your hog
wash. Your Jesus said it no longer applies. ie. we have been
exonerated of Adam's sin by the very person you claim you follow.
Mind you, we know Jesus was a liar anyway. It shows you this in the
Bible.
When asked about his preaching Jesus claimed "I have not come to
change the law" ie. the laws as laid out in the 613 commandments
(that's including the other 600, or so, that you ignore). But then
he went on and changed the law. An eye for an eye became turn the
other cheek. Hence Jesus lied as he changed the law.
Like all Christians you come to the salad bar of the Bible and pick
and choose the things you like and discard the things you don't. We
can see this has been the same throughout history as there are over
1000 denominations under the broad umbrella of "Christianity". ie.
there is not really a religion of Christianity as no two believers
agree on what it is. For a system of beliefs it is painfully clear
to anyone with a pinch of gumption that there is no such thing as
Christianity. There are only people who use the Bible to put forward
their own wants and desires and hide their selfishness behind the
Bible.
Let's look a very good example of "Christian salad-barism".
Ask practically any Christian about homosexuality and they will say
"it's a sin against god". They will then point to their Bible as
support for this bigotry. But it doesn't actually say this in the
Bible at all. The Bible actually says "Do not perform a sexual act
against your nature". ie. if you're heterosexual, don't do as
homosexuals do. If you're homosexual, don't do as heterosexuals do.
Many scholars believe this law pertains to the large amount of
fertility cults that existed at the time where you performed sexual
acts to appease your god. This included men having sex with men and
women having sex with women. The Hebrews baulked at this practice
and thus the law "do not perform a sexual act against your nature"
was born.
When this is pointed out to "Christians" they then drop back to
their next claim "people choose to be homosexual". And again, they
are wrong. Discovering your own sexuality is not a choice. You don't
get up one morning and decide to be heterosexual or homosexual. You
come to realise that you have a sexuality and your sexual preference
is what it is - natural. But at least you now know why some
Christians shout that people choose to be homosexual.
The salad-bar part of this is that it is one of the 613 commandments
outlined in the Old Testament. They point to that one being broken
and call it a sin on that basis. Of course, ask any Christian if
they have any mixed-fibre clothing and you will invariably draw a
blank look, yet that is also one of the 613 commandments and you
shouldn't mix fibres.
Of course, this means that you're going to hell for disobeying that
law right? Wrong. There is no concept of hell in the Old Testament.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal damnation is a Christian
invention. I mean only people with true love on their hearts would
invent a place of eternal torture if you don't follow them, right?
(I do hope you have picked up on the sarcasm in that last sentence).
All in all, "Christians" have got to be some of the most confused
and deluded people on this planet, but they seek to control your
lives and incessantly invite you to become a part of their madness.
Unfortunately, history has conspired to leave us in a position
whereby these people have been able to grab power from time to time
and their power is still such that they have managed to convince
governments that their vile garbage should be a compulsory offering
for school-children.
There is one last recourse; although it is compulsory for children
to be offered this garbage, it is not compulsory for them to attend.
You are well within your rights to refuse your children being
exposed to their lies and confusion. I suggest you exercise that
right, and within time, this lesson will be empty. Then you can
rightfully complain to your local MP that the school is paying for a
teacher that is not utilised and strongly urge him to put forward
the need for a change in the law in parliament.
Paul Davis, Hertford
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 04/02/09:
Dawn the death cult believer said
this:
"If you were to read the book of Revelation you may begin to
understand what is going to happen to our world in the future"
Is this what you preach to children, Dawn? Or do you hide it away
until they start asking difficult questions and pointing out the
contradictions, prevarications, obfuscations and downright lies that
issue from the mouths of people like you?
When all is lost you pull out the death card and use it. The last
resort of the tyrant is to threaten death to anyone who disagrees.
How utterly despicable.
You aren't preaching love at all. You're preaching death to the
unbelievers who will not bow down to your tyrant god.
You shouldn't have this nonsense just kicked out of school, but
people who believe it should be rounded up and put in the insane
asylum with all the other Napoleons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 03/02/09: To Dawn:
You said "He does answer prayer but in three ways. Yes, no and
wait."
So whatever happens prayer is answered!!!!!
Pull the other one - you are deluding yourself.
This justification isn't a justification at all but a manipulation
of simple minds.
Regards
A
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 03/02/09:To
Dawn,
You said this:
" You are perfectly correct. Jesus was on the cross for just over 6
hours as the bible says. And if you read the gospel accounts you
will soon realise that Joseph of Aramathea couldn’t override the
decision of hardened roman soldiers who had witnessed countless
crucifixions and knew when dead meant dead. I know of 3 writers, and
there are probably more, who have set out to write a book on how the
resurrection was a myth and after sifting through the facts have had
to write the exact opposite."
Please name these 3 authors.
cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul 03/02/09:Hi
Dawn,
I didn't ask for your god to answer
every prayer. I named two specific items: war and famine. Your reply
"if god answered every prayer it would be chaos" is therefore a
strawman response.
Who caused the wars is not the issue. The issue is the innocent
victims of wars they did not cause yet who still die en masse
regardless of prayers to your god for their salvation. Why would he
not say "Yes" to these prayers? What chaos do you envisage would
ensue if he said "Yes" to all those prayers?
Please do explain.
Famine isn't caused by your god? So who was it that sent the plague
of locusts to destroy all those crops? Who sent the rains at the
wrong time of the year to destroy crops? Who didn't send rains at
the right time of year to destroy crops? Who sent the bacterias and
parasites to destroy crops? Humans?
No, I think not. These are NATURAL disasters, and your god is
claimed to have created nature.
Why would your god let all those children die every day rather than
answer "Yes" to a prayer for their lives? What chaos do you envisage
would ensue if he said "Yes" and these children lived?
Please do explain.
Your god will one day sort this world out is pie in the sky
nonsense. Your god is omnipotent according to the bible. He can
change it right now. That he doesn't means that although he is
omnipotent he is clearly malevolent. Your god sits by and watches
innocents die daily despite prayers for their salvation.
Tell me Dawn, if you were all powerful would YOU let them die? Would
YOU answer their prayers? And don't cop out by saying "Im not god".
Answer the question.
I know that I wouldn't. I would answer their prayers.
How is it that I, a non-religious person, have more compassion for
the humans of this planet than the god you claim exists?
Your reply that god has a "greater purpose" for us all does not
justify the deaths of millions of innocents. It smacks of
dictatorship indistinguishable from the dictatorships that exist now
and have existed in the past. Dictatorships that are willing to let
millions suffer all in the name of "greater purpose".
I'm sure when Stalin was in power he had a "greater purpose" and all
those that died under his orders where a neccesary evil on the road
to his "greater purpose". The same for Pol Pot and Sung Jun-Il, and
Hitler. They all claim/claimed to be doing it for a "greater
purpose".
Your god is indistinguishable from a mass murdering tyrant.
And you want people to believe in this monster?
As to your laughable fear argument about atheist's children who
might believe in your god. Let's put the boot on the other foot and
ask you, is it out of FEAR that you want to keep religion in
schools because you know that if they are not seeded with your
religion at an early age that once they reach adulthood they wont
give your beliefs a second thought?
Even your bible says give me a child before 7 years of age and I
will give you a man who believes. Even back in those days they knew
that time is a critical factor with the indoctrination of children
into believers.
Like Mike, I learned most of what I know about religion from my own
studies and not from school.
When I was at school there was no mention of Islam, Hinduism,
Shintoism, Taosim, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Zen Buddhism,
Theravada Buddhism, or any of the multitude of other belief systems
in this planet.
All we got was Bible stories. Not even discussion about those
stories. They were told as if they were facts, and they clearly are
not facts.
In your church, do you teach the children there about other
religions? Do you tell them that these belief systems are as valid
as yours? Do you tell them they do not have to believe your religion
and are allowed to choose their own to follow or none? Do you tell
them what atheism is? Do you tell them what agnosticism is?
You said this "We had such fun in church this morning. I just wish
you could have been there. I think it would have been an eye-opener.
Children of all ages mixing together, listening to the stories,
singing, drama, art-work etc. I fail to see anything remotely vile
and disgusting in that at all. Non Christian parents show real
gratitude at the love being shown their children. Including hardened
atheists who do still send their kids along."
Why would non-Christian parents be taking their children to your
Christian church?
Please, do explain.
Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike 01/02/2009: Hi Dawn,
Mythology and theological belief
intrigue me; the religious indoctrination of children concerns me.
To that end, I have read the Old Testament, the New Testament, The
Koran, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Gnostic Gospels of the Nag Hammadi
Library, The Mesopotamian myths of Gilgamesh, The Egyptians Myths of
Osiris and the Roman/Persian myths of Mithras.
If I were to
criticize the state sanctioned religious indoctrination of children
(particularly in faith schools) without having studied the theories,
I would be making unfunded claims with no knowledge of the issues I
criticize.
I am not aware of
any movement that wishes to gain government support to preach to
children in schools that all religious belief is fiction. I cannot
speak for all atheists, because I have no right to and atheists do
not meet to agree upon a canonised set of values and beliefs (or
should that be non beliefs). But as an individual: your belief and
my belief/non belief are private matters; neither your, nor my
beliefs should have any place in education or politics.
The argument
given; that we need to make children aware of religion in order for
them to accept and respect its existence is a flawed and weak
argument on many fronts:
-
Racist parties exist in this county; we do
not feel the need to ask children to learn understand and
respect their beliefs.
-
All religious theologies are so
ridiculous; they deserve no respect at all.
-
You do not teach children all theologies,
you cheery pick the ones you want to proselytise and ignore the
rest.
-
No mention is made of the theologies the
Church has brutally suppressed and eradicated (Gnostic faiths
and Pagan beliefs).
-
Astrologers and mediums do not receive the
special status afforded to religion by the government; but
ancient astrology and sooth sayers are the back bone and
evolutionary start point of all religious beliefs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn
01/02/09:Hi Mike,
Well! I do believe exactly that! Can I ask where you learned those
parts of the bible so well? At school?!
I do see your point exactly but, as you no doubt would follow
through, I would worry that it IS your problem that you don’t
believe because of the very reasons you stated. If there is no
heaven or hell then fine. But what if the bible is true? That is why
Christians are so concerned for those who aren’t. I think to say we
insist that we be allowed to convince children is too harsh. I do
teach bible stories at an out of school club but I would never
insist that children make a commitment to Jesus. That is total
indoctrination and I present the truth as I see it and it is up to
every individual to make their own choice.
I’m surprised you say atheists don’t try to push their beliefs onto
children. The ones I know do just that. This surely is the main
reason why you don’t want religion taught in school. Surely if one
is an agnostic then they wouldn’t care either way.
It seems as though you would like to tell secondary school children
that the bible is purely an out of date novel. So why shouldn’t
Christians be allowed to put it forward as God’s living Word and is
relevant for today?
We had such fun in church this morning. I just wish you could have
been there. I think it would have been an eye-opener. Children of
all ages mixing together, listening to the stories, singing, drama,
art-work etc. I fail to see anything remotely vile and disgusting in
that at all. Non Christian parents show real gratitude at the love
being shown their children. Including hardened atheists who do still
send their kids along.
But I do see where you are at and I do see that atheists can take
great offence at religious education. I understand completely. But
there again I wonder if there is a fear element. If an atheist had
children at school would he be fearful about their being taught
faith in case they believed it? Whereas a Christian could cope with
their children being exposed to atheism because we know that God
will take care of our kids no matter what they hear.
I’m not sure if I’ve explained what I mean.
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike 01/02/09: Dawn
The issue, which all people of faith simply cannot fathom, including
our politicians, is this.
You believe that:
-
An entity in the ether created a world in
7 days.
-
That he kicked off the population of that
world with two people who disobeyed him.
-
From these two people came lots of people
who he was displeased with, so he killed them all with a massive
flood; save Noah, his family and two of every animal.
-
Then the entity in the ether made a virgin
pregnant so he could walk the earth as a man.
-
This person was executed, and then came
back to life and then ascended into the ether.
-
He will come again in the future to reside
over the destruction of the world at Megiddo (Armageddon).
-
Before the destruction, all that believed
in him will be raptured up to heaven (dead and living) to live
with him for eternity in heaven.
-
All who did not believe in him will stay
on earth and suffer great pestilence and then join the dead who
did not believe in him and suffer eternal damnation in hell.
Now; the fact that
you choose to believe the above is not the problem. I do not believe
it and that is not the problem either. The issue is, you are
incapable of just believing it, and you INSIST that you be allowed
to convince children it is true. It is that which is the issue.
Atheists have no
desire to foist their lack of belief in myths on to children;
atheists just want religion to stop foisting their acceptance of
theology as factually based on to children.
Evangelise by all
means, but wait until your targets are at least 18 before you
proselytize to them.
One of the biggest
ironies in our country today is that; promoting the political ideals
of a particular political party to children in schools is a criminal
offence, while failing to provide religious education and holding a
collective act of worship (broadly Christian in nature) is also an
offence!
Trying to convince
secondary school children that religion is faculty based and that
they should really conduct their lives according the words in a 2500
year old novel is clearly wrong; trying to convince infant and
junior school children is vile and down right disgusting; trying to
convince pre school children in “Kidz Church” is simply beyond the
pale of all human decency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 31/01/09:Hi
Paul and Mike,
Paul,
I would suggest that you don’t understand prayer. If God granted
every prayer that has ever been uttered then what chaos we would be
in. He does answer prayer but in three ways. Yes, no and wait. It is
because of Adam’s sin the world is in such a mess. God doesn’t cause
war or global hunger. But frequently people try to blame the God
they don’t believe in for all the world’s problems. He will one day
sort this world out, so people are quite free to pray for these
things and expect the answer ‘wait’. That is still answered prayer
but God doesn’t work to our timetable. If you were to read the book
of Revelation you may begin to understand what is going to happen to
our world in the future.
Mike,
You can’t exactly assure me that Jesus is a ‘myth’ unless I can
assure you He isn’t! Neither can you state that the personal
Abrahamic God is a complete guess and completely and utterly wrong.
That is just your opinion.
You say “What is an answered prayer? And, if there are answered
prayers presumably there are also unanswered prayers.”
Perhaps you could read what I said to Paul. God ‘hears’ our prayers
and ‘answers’ them for our ultimate good or according to His
Purpose. Yes I agree that often the good/bad outcomes would have
happened anyway, even without praying. But God still wants us to
talk to Him.
God can cure everyone but that does not mean for one moment He will.
We do not control Him. But yes He does give skill to the surgeons
and I am personally grateful for the dedication they give.
I think that until you go searching for yourself then Christianity
will just be unfathomable to you. God knows those who are truly
seeking Him and He will always draw near to them.
But to get back to teaching Christianity in School! I take a group
of kids to church with me where they have kidz church. They don’t
come from a Christian background and they always are given a choice,
and nine times out of ten they come. Why? Because they obviously
enjoy it and they like learning the bible stories and hearing about
Jesus. So why deny them? When they are older the decision will be
theirs as to what to do with what they have learned and the Person
they have learned about.
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul 21/01/09: Dawn,
re; answered prayers:
If prayer works then I can only ascertain that no one has prayed for
an end to global hunger, or an end to war.
Of course, if you have prayed for these things then I can only
ascertain that prayer doesn't work.
Thanks for showing us all that "people of faith" are clearly not
people with any kind of critical reasoning facility and should
really be kept far and away from positions of power where their
"faith" can have no influence on thinking people.
cheers
Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike 17/01/09: Hi
Dawn
Re having grounds to comment: I have read The complete works of
Josephus translated by Willam Whiston, The works of Philo by C D
Young, The Dead Sea Scrolls by Geza Vermes, the Gnostic Gosples by
Willis Barnstone & Marvin Meyer along with a whole host of works on
Pagen God Childs such as Orpheus, Attis, Mithras, Osiris, Horus,
Bacchus, Dionysus etc.
I can assure you, your figure head is a mythical
creation, and a plagiarised carbon copy of those listed above; God
Child myths that existed for centuries before the Jesus Character.
Re Josephus, the passage you refer to (a very
small passage) is 18.3.3 from the “The Antiquities of the Jews”. It
is now correctly regarded as an insertion into the original work (A
fake). This is not wishful thinking on the part of atheists. The
reason it is regarded as a fake is because 18.3.4 clearly follows on
from 18.3.2.
Re Caesar v Jesus: The issue is not the amount of
writing, but corroborative writing. All the writing about Jesus
comes after the compilation of the Gospels and is therefore mere
regurgitation and not corroborative (not evidence). As for Caesar,
other people wrote about Caesar, people directly affected by his
actions, these writings are both contemporary to the time frame and
corroborative (evidence).
Re faith: I do not have a faith position, faith
is the position you adopt when you know your argument is weak or
wrong and lacking in evidence. The biggest mistake religious people
make when categorising atheists is to picture them as adopting a
creation position themselves. This is wrong, you see, you say you
know how the world began, we say (or at least I do) that this is
wrong; mankind has not yet discovered how the universe / world
began. We are still trying to find out; we may even be incapable of
ever finding out. What we do know, is the personal Abrahamic God
version is a complete guess and completely and utterly wrong.
When you say, I read the bible and that is why I
believe Jesus existed; you have to realise this is equivalent to
saying I have read the DC comics, that is why I know Superman
exists.
The character of Jesus started out, at the
beginning of the 1st century as an allegorical spiritual god that
was an adaptation of the old pagan god childs, this allegorical
being was subsequently turned into a physical character from history
around the middle of the 2nd century; by the start of the 4th
century the Roman Emperor Constantine sided with the idea of a
historical God figure called Jesus and made it the state religion.
From then on people where forced to believe in the new world
religion on pain of death and torture. Parents told their children
to believe because their well being in life depended on them
physically displaying total belief. Today people just believe
because their parents told them to believe.
You refer to experiencing the feel of Jesus, this
is a physical bodily function that you created for yourself and then
attributed to the presence of a God called Jesus. I can create the
same such feeling myself and do so whenever England score a goal (a
rare event I know), the deference is, I do not attribute the feeling
to an out of body spiritual experience, I see it as a feeling of
inner elation that I personally created myself.
What is an answered prayer? And, if there are
answered prayers presumably there are also unanswered prayers. Do
you not feel sometimes that maybe the good/bad outcomes would have
happened anyway, even without praying? We do know that if you do not
pray that outcomes for specific situations vary from very good to
mediocre through to very bad. But consider this, if a doctor
administers a medical procedure that results in a patient being
cured of cancer, is that patient right to thank God and ignore the
skill of the doctor and his administration of medical practice. To
expand this further is it not odd, that God can only cure what man
is capable of curing himself? That is, for all ailments that man
cannot yet cure, neither can God!
However, all that is bye the bye; although this
web site does set out to highlight the fallacy of religious belief,
it does not insist people should not have faith if they wish. This
site defends everybody’s right to believe what ever they like. The
issue is, those faith positions should be a private, not public
matter and should not be preached to children in school, nor for
that matter should atheism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 17/01/09:Hi
Mike,
Actually there is evidence outside the bible. I have read the
writings of the historian, Josephus (who wasn’t a ‘Christian’ and
wrote factually about Jesus), and I have been told by plenty of
people that there is more evidence that Jesus was a real figure in
history than there is for Julius Caesar. Jesus is talked about far,
far more than ever Julius Caesar is so it would be good to ponder
why.
Yes, my parents did teach me about Jesus but I have still questioned
their faith and read the bible for myself. I don’t blindly listen to
everything I’m told. But it goes deeper than that. I look around me
at creation and I’ve held my babies in my arms and concluded without
a shadow of a doubt that there must be a Creator. To be an atheist
and believe that everything developed from nothing requires a faith
that I don’t have. I often wonder if atheists ask themselves the
honest question. Do they really have that much faith or are they
pretending they do because they can’t face up to the fact that if
something didn’t come from nothing then something must have come
from a Creator God. And to believe in God would bring too many
personal problems. They would have to follow it through and ask that
if there is a God then what if His book, the bible is true. And, if
it is true, what if Jesus really did rise from the dead. What if
there really is a heaven and a hell.
But more importantly once a person takes that initial step of faith
they come to know that Jesus is real. By the feel of His Presence
and by answered prayer. Yes, I know that you, and seemingly most
people who have commented on this website, can scoff at such things
and say that Christians must have very vivid imaginations, but until
you dig deeper yourself you aren’t on any ground to say that
Christians are just naïve and brainless.
Respectfully,
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike 15/01/09:
Dawn: You really do need to ask yourself an honest question. Who
told you that a person called Jesus was nailed to a cross, died, and
then came back to life? Was it perhaps your parents, or a Priest?
Then ask yourself, who told them? was it perhaps their parents or a
Priest? etc.
There is absolutely no corroborative
evidence outside of the bible for the existence of a person called
Jesus Christ; and there is no corroborative evidence outside of the
Star Wars novels for the existence of a chosen one called Luke Sky
Walker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 15/01/09:
You are perfectly correct. Jesus was on the cross for just over 6
hours as the bible says. And if you read the gospel accounts you
will soon realise that Joseph of Aramathea couldn’t override the
decision of hardened roman soldiers who had witnessed countless
crucifixions and knew when dead meant dead. I know of 3 writers, and
there are probably more, who have set out to write a book on how the
resurrection was a myth and after sifting through the facts have had
to write the exact opposite.
The bible came from God. And in it He says that if we put our trust
in His Son we spend eternity with Him. We all have a choice whether
to believe Him or not.
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name 14/01/09:
[Dawn],
you point to your ten commandments, but there aren't ten
commandments. The ten most people refer to are ten commandments of a
total of 613. Don't believe me? Look here
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm Like so many of the salad bar
religious you pick and choose the ones you like and ignore the ones
you don't.
You might like to notice that violence existed well before "God left
American schools" and actually predates the school system. Even your
bible depicts the various acts of violence done in his name. Like so
many of the short sighted people who bark their god as saviour you
point to things that have no relation and claim they are cause and
effect.
The deterioration of societal values has nothing to do with god
being removed from the classroom but everything to do with a
commercially driven society where people value self-satisfaction
over taking responsibility for their actions. The reason violence is
on the increase is down to a lack of correct fair discipline within
the home and a society that values profit over people.
And Billy Graham is hardly a paragon of virtue is he?
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/billy_graham_exposed.htm
Your Jesus is today what he was yesterday - dead and an
unsubstantiated myth propagated by people with power to keep people
in line. Jesus didn't rise from the dead. He didn't die. Joseph of
Aramathea took healing herbs to his tomb, not herbs you would take
for a dead body. Jesus wasn't on the cross for 3 days. It would be
surprising if he was on there for more than 6 hours because Jewish
law, which was observed by the occupying Romans to keep the peace
with them, was that all crucified Jews be taken down before the
Sabbath. The Sabbath starts at sunset on a Friday and Jesus was
crucified on a Friday. Hence, he couldn't have been on there for 3
days.
Of course you can either carry on believing without challenge
everything your preacher says to you or you can open your mind and
actually read about the bible and discover how and why it exists.
You will probably choose to carry on deluding yourself that all we
need is your bible to stop multinational corporations and banks
ruling our lives but when you die you'll be bacteria food, or fire
fuel, like the rest of us and all your pontificating will have got
you nowhere different.
Remember this commandment: thou shall not bear false witness? You do
this every time you spout your ill educated rubbish to other people
because you don't have the first clue what the bible is about or
where it came from.
By the way I do hope you don't have any mixed fibre clothing, and
how many shirts do you own?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 14/01/09:
Hi TheAtheistAdvocate.com
I’m glad you’ve thought all that through but you haven’t got to the
end. God didn’t kill His Son. Jesus gave His own life. And it wasn't
for no reason, or in vain. Jesus rose from the dead and everyone who
puts their faith and trust in Him will go to His Home one day.
Yes, sure God did create perfect people but He created them with
free will as He doesn't want a bunch of robots worshipping Him.
Makes sense.
Dawn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn 14/01/09:
Billy Graham's daughter in U.S. said, ".... for
years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out
of our
government and to get out of our lives. And being the Gentleman He
is, I
believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us
His
blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... school shootings, etc. I
think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her
body
found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our
schools, and
we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in
school. The
Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your
neighbour
as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when
they
misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we
might
damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said
an
expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why
they
don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill
strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure
it out.
I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
The bible with the ten commandments and the life of Jesus gives us a
moral code for living. When these examples are pushed to one side we
get what we have now. A nearly lawless society. Everyone out for
number one.
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 07/01/09: Not from previous "Noname"
Totally agree TheAtheistAdvocate - furthermore - A bad workman
(god?) blames his tools!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TheAtheistAdvocate.com 04/01/09:
Hey "No Name", TheAtheistAdvocate.com here. You say Jesus died
for your sins? Is that a good thing?
I have pondered this frequently and here are my thoughts on it.
God knows everything, he is everywhere and always is and always will
be.
He created people in his image who were not perfect.
But of course, he knew they would not be perfect because he knows
everything, right?
So he gets angry with our imperfections and kills everyone, even
innocents, during the great flood.
God hoped to 'start over' with a new batch of humans and hope they
are perfect.
So, Noah and his family repopulate the world. But, people are still
imperfect, So...
God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah because they are not
perfect.
But of course, god knew they would not be perfect, because he knows
everything!
Ah!!! A great idea, I will make Mary pregnant with my god child,
grow him up,
and then kill him in the most horrific means possible! I bet that
will make humans perfect!
But we are not!!! NOTHING has changed. So god killed his son for no
reason at all!!!
God must have known all of these things he would do to save man
would be in vain, since he knows everything!
So either he does not know everything, or he killed all of those
people for nothing!
I say, what a great idea. Do you think ANYONE would approve if you
had your child killed,
in the hope of saving other people from something they can't see,
feel or touch?
Why don't you try it? Kill someone so you can save someone else!
The most ridiculous thing I have ever
heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If god wanted perfect people without sin, he has the power to either
make them from jump street, or change them with the wave of a hand.
There was never a need to kill and slaughter innocent people to get
the job done. Killing his own son... OMFG... give me a break!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 01/01/09: So sad that Notori is so blind. Jesus died out of Love for people
who spit in His Face. Why not forget religion and find out about Jesus Who offers you a
place in heaven. We all need to be loved and to love in return. And there is no
greater Love than His.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 30/12/2008: Easy, tho' sad, answer to John & Jim, perhaps made before. To the
victor the spoils, including the right to write & rewrite history.
The Catholic church was the victor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nilgun Oven: 4/12/2008:
I am pleased there is such a website, however you might add some
reference for the info given. The site could also look more
colourful and attractive. I have browsed darwinday site and the
same problem - looks dull and unattractive. Creationists' sites are
so lively and colourful. It can be argued that facts need no colour
and I agree, but still we are human
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 26/11/2008:
I do like this website. it
contains a lot of useful information, however you definitely need
someone to proof-read it for you, and make the layout a bit more
browser friendly.
That said, all the best and keep up with the good work. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Orland: 25/11/2008:
We must speak out and say enough is enough with the idiocy of
religion.
It hasn't even personally affected me in my life - I just believe it
is
dangerous and I don't like lies. Edmund Burke was right: "All that
is
required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
It is a mind virus and let's hope, with the abandonment of PC, we
can kill
it off.
Best regards,
Gavin Orland
http://www.gavinorland.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 25/11/2008:
This site looks like it was
made by goats
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris: 22/11/2008: From Chris in Hoddesdon: I've just read the article in the "Herald"
East Herts edition for 20th November. "Campaigner defends 'no
religion leaflet' and the reference to someone 'freaked out' by your
pointing out the falsity and dangers of religion.
More power to
Michael Lawrence! They stuff our letter boxes with "You're going to
Hell for ever if you don't join us" nonsense year in, year out and
one leaflet makes them 'freak out'!
We've been at the same address
for nearly forty-nine years and never received one leaflet critical
of religion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davis: 22/11/2008:A
dissemination of these comments from "Concerned citizen":
======================================
Concerned citizen:
20/11/2008:
As a Christian, this site offends me! A society without God and
no concept of right or wrong is exactly what we have now, and look
at the state of Britain.
======================================
First they start with an appeal to emotion: their offence at this
site. Appeals to emotion are a well used tactic by the religious
because their emotions are tightly woven with their religion. It
actually gives you a clue into how they were indoctrinated into
their belief system. Facts do not need emotional appeals. Lacking
any facts they have no choice but to resort to emotional appeals.
You notice how this writer also implies that religion has the
monopoly on right or wrong? This is classic religious pomposity.
Religion does not have a monopoly on right or wrong. I was brought
up in a non-religious household but I am quite able to tell right
from wrong on many occasions. However, I am still learning and what
I find to be right at this time may turn out to be wrong in the
future. I am open to this as the main thrust of my life is for
greater understanding. I do not make any claims to having absolute
knowledge of right and wrong.
======================================
Concerned citizen: 20/11/2008:
Christianity preaches love not hate and acceptance of everyone
as all are loved equally by God. What is so wrong with teaching our
children this message ? I have heard these arguments about Jesus
before and they are simply incorrect.
======================================
Where is the evidence of your "God"? And, please don't point to your
bible as it is not evidence of anything except previous believers
and their beliefs.
Notice how the writer does not point to any specific argument, but
just makes an unsubstantiated claim that they are incorrect. Is the
kind of "teaching" they would like to see in schools? "Shut up
child, anything you say against me is simply incorrect", and no
actual discussion taking place?
======================================
Concerned citizen: 20/11/2008:
There is more literal evidence for him than there is for Julius
Caesar, come on., lets get our facts straight!
========================================
Indeed. Let's get our facts straight. There is only one source about
Jesus - the Bible. There is no other independent contemporary
evidence to support the claims in the Bible, literal or otherwise.
There are, however, independent contemporary reports of Julius
Caesar.
The tactic here is to say "Well, you accept Julius Caesar existed on
little evidence therefore Jesus must be real too". The existence of
Jesus is not dependant on the existence of other people who are
accepted to have existed. This is literally saying, you believe A
therefore you must believe B.
======================================
Concerned citizen: 20/11/2008:
A concerned citizen of Britain
======================================
I'm also a concerned citizen of Britain. Why should we take more
note of your concern than anyone else's concern? Because you're a
Christian? Why shouldn't we take note of Muslim concern? Or Hindu
concerns? Or Taosist concerns? Or Buddhist concerns? Or secular
concerns? Or Sikh concerns? Or.... get the picture?
Never let someone talk down to you as if they know it all. You have
as much right to your own beliefs as this person has to theirs.
Don't resort to their tactics. Hit them with facts and get them to
explain why the facts are not correct. This is called logical
discourse.
Paul Davis, Hertford.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 22/11/2008:
This comment is not about the subject mater of your site, but
about the format of it. You're going to get more and more comments
and you really need to think about setting up a proper message
board. Not only will it make it easier for people to use and
interact with but will make your lives a lot easier too.
Suggestion: open up an MSN or Yahoo group or something similar, or
use their sites as a template for how to arrange yours.
I applaud what you are attempting to do here, but like it or not, a
well presented site will have a greater impact, and will only help
to further your cause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 21/11/2008:
I have no problem with personal faith. The problems start when
people start trying to indoctrinate other people into their beliefs
and trying to import the idea that their version of god is better
than someone else's version of god. I have been approached by
"people of faith" on many occasions and several times the emphasis
of their argument it to save my soul from eternal damnation in hell.
To people who have limited education or are easily scared this is
tantamount to mental assault and it should be outlawed. They are not
being given the facts whatsoever but are being harassed by people
with an agenda. In a society that claims to seek balance (please
stop laughing at the back there) this sort of thing should not be
allowed.
Since the so-called Christian Tory Bliar err Tony Blair got into
power there has been a marked increase in the emphasis of religion
and the way they try to foist it on people now is to claim that
teaching it in schools will help people make an informed choice.
Sounds good doesn't it? Well, take a closer look because schools of
faith go to great pains to paint their own faith as the only viable
alternative while pointing out what they see as flaws in the others
faiths ideologies. ie. they do not highlight the inconsistencies in
their own faith because they do not want children to be swayed away
from their chosen (or indoctrinated) faith.
Children should not be taught religion in schools until they have
reached an age where they have control over their own cognitive
abilities and are able to make an educated choice on what they want
to believe if at all.
My parents are not religious. They are not anti-religious either. I
can remember coming home from my Christian primary school when I was
a child (there weren't any non-faith schools in my area) and asking
my mother about god and she gave me a very balanced reply. She told
me, "No one knows if there is a god or not and I will not tell you
what to believe. What I will tell you is that if you want to know
more then read about the different religions and the critics of
those religions and then make the decision for yourself, but do not
make that decision until you feel you have found enough information
to make that choice for yourself". I took that as to mean that I
should wait until I was older and can understand what I am reading,
so that is what I did.
I spent about five years on internet discussion groups arguing about
religion with both the religious and non-religious. I found that
there are good and bad people on both sides, but the thing that rang
clear to me was that there is no evidence to support faith. That is
why it is called faith - the belief in things not seen. We all have
a certain amount of faith but the responsible amongst do not out
forward as unassailable truth that which we know is not supported by
any facts.
I'll use the Jesus story as an example as it is the one I am most
familiar with: outside of the Bible there is no evidence of a
historical Jesus. This does not mean that he did not exist. What it
means is that claims of his existence and his claimed acts are not
corroborated from any other independent contemporary source. People
point to Pliny and Josephus and the like but these people were not
contemporises. They relayed second hand information and much of
their work that has survived has been shown to have interpolations
within it. ie. people tampered with historical documents in order to
make their beliefs seem true to people who might find them later.
This is hardly an honest thing to do no matter what the motivation
was to do it, and this dishonesty carried on to this day with
preachers making outrageous claims about their beliefs that do not
have any historical corroboration, and also repeating claims that
have already been shown to be false.
The Bible in it's current form was decided upon by the Council of
Nicaea way back in c.325CE. The then Roman Emperor turned to
Christianity and decided that history should be re-written,
literally. He ordered many known texts to be either altered or
destroyed in order that history should reflect a historical Jesus
rather than the allegorical Jesus found in the writings of the
Apostles.
Again, this is hardly an honest thing to do, but we see this pattern
in the behaviour of Christians repeated throughout history (and not
just Christians either - unfortunately this kind of dishonesty is
not the sole preserve of Christians and most religions have done
it). Do not be fooled into thinking this cannot happen again. The
internet is a wonderful source of information but it is also a
massive resource of dis-information and many of the faithful have
found a new way to reach a new audience through it. The internet is
bursting with sites proclaiming to "know the truth" and even if some
of these sites aren't too bright, unfortunately, the general
population isn't too bright either.
Why am I saying all this? Well, for one I hate to see people
believing in pie in the sky. We get enough of that from politicians
and "leaders" already without our children's minds being infected
with intentional dumbing down to believe in an unevidenced god - and
you do need to dumb down to believe the pie in the sky that comes
out of most believers mouths. My reason for stating all this is that
the study of religion and how we come to find it in its current form
is very interesting and teaches you a lot about humanity and its
drives and wants. It also gives you the information to make an
educated evaluation of what various religions claim. I urge you to
breed the spirit of research into your children so they can make
their own choices from a large pool of accurate information and
critical and non-critical sources. There is one big sword that has
been shown time and time again to be the nemesis of religions
ideologies - it is called balanced education.
So, rather than remove religion from schools I think it should be
included in the curriculum but with the emphasis on evaluation
rather than how I was taught it in school as a cold hard fact. I
recommend a book by Carl Sagan called "The Demon-Haunted World" for
any parent to be a must read both for themselves and their children
religious or otherwise. Dr. Sagan was a wonderful man and he left a
wonderful book for all of us to read.
Keep this site going. For one, the religious will reply and expose
themselves as disingenuous and groundless. Do not let any claim go
unchallenged by them, and always always be polite to them lest they
bow out of the conversation under the guise of offence and this
escape evaluating their own beliefs in light of critical responses.
For two, you will find a remarkable amount of well educated people
will join in and teach you new and wonderful things.
Good luck.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 21/11/2008: Just a further comment about the woman who complained to the paper
that she was shocked by the leaflet through her door. Has she ever
read the Bible? If they made a movie out of it and kept close to the
actual writings instead of Hollywoodising it, it would be an 18
rated movie. Yet, I would imagine, she is quite happy for her
children to be exposed to it. There are many stories in the Bible
that simply make you wince at what people have done in the name of
their god or claim to have been done for them in the name of their
god.
Maybe she is OK with the idea that her children will be tormented in
hell for eternity if they do not subscribe to its "teachings"
whatever they were.
A little test for you:
1. How many commandments are there?
2. How long was Jesus on the cross?
3. What herbs did Joseph of Aramathea take to Jesus' tomb?
4. How big was Noah's ark, and can you name a ship of comparable
size that has ever been built from the same materials?
5. How many of each animal were on board the Ark?
6. Why do Jews not accept Jesus as the "King of the Jews"?
7. Did Jesus ever tell a lie?
8. What is the Meshe Stele?
9. Who cut Samson's hair?
10. What is the number of the beast?
No prizes for answering except some education for those who think
they know the answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James C: 20/11/2008:
If we
need any evidence of what a really effective religious education in
a faith school can produce, here it is:
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk
The ministry of Christian Voice and the position
we take is entirely dependant upon the biblical witness,
uncomfortable as that may be to the modern humanistic mind. We
believe the Holy Bible to be the inspired, infallible, written Word
of God to whose precepts, given for the good of nations and
individuals, all man's laws must submit.
What more reason do we need to say; CLOSE DOWN
THE FAITH SCHOOLS NOW!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 20/11/2008:
To Concerned citizen; “…come on, let’s
get our facts straight!”
A man is born to a God and a mortal virgin. He can turn water into wine He can walk on water He can calm the stormy sea by talking to it He can heal blindness by touching people He can bring the dead back to life He was tortured and executed, then came back to life himself.
“come on, let’s get our
facts straight!”
????
You are deeply offended;
well, that is because you are seriously religious.
So; to avoid the undesirable
situation of such deep felt offence in the future to people when
confronted with research, research that exposes the hypocrisy of
their faith, best we stop indoctrinating children now!
Further, it matters not how
much you are offended, or how much faith you have in what you
believe; no amount of hurt feeling or credulity can turn fiction
into fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hazell: 20/11/2008:
I'm not religious, I don't believe either way but its worrying
children are taught to believe in faith from such a young age. The
bottom line is there is no proof either way.
As of now Fortune-tellers must tell customers what they offer is
“for entertainment only” and not “experimentally proven”. This means
that a fortune-teller who sets up a tent at a funfair will have to
put up a disclaimer on a board outside.
Religion is also experimentally unproven so should also post
disclaimers on all textbooks places of worship etc. But because
faith based business is rich, powerful and has such influence then
it would seem they escape any form of legislation.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/public_law/article3987725.ece
All we can hope is that over time as more and more generations fall
out of love with the church and other faiths that common sense and
reasoning will finally take over. Religion is really after all just
a set of man made rules created to try to give people a moral
compass. The pity is that it has been hijacked by a small minority
who seek to enforce their ideas.
Richard Hazell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned citizen:
20/11/2008:
As a Christian, this site offends me! A society without God and
no concept of right or wrong is exactly what we have now, and look
at the state of Britain. Christianity preaches love not hate and
acceptance of everyone as all are loved equally by God. What is so
wrong with teaching our children this message ?
I have heard these arguments about Jesus before and they are simply
incorrect. There is more literal evidence for him than there is for
Julius Caesar, come on., lets get our facts straight!
A concerned citizen of Britain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 18/11/2008: Our government is outrageous:
It passes
legislation which compels us to respect the views of religions.
A person who believes that he is not really
living, he is only in a transitory world where he is being tested
for his place in an eternal life to come, is quite entitled to his
point of view on how the world works.
A person who holds that point of view and foists
it onto young children deserves no respect at all.
Our government should not be passing laws to
force us to appease such views; they should be passing laws to make
the religious indoctrination of children illegal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 11/11/2008:
Nice site, thanks for
information!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David: 09/11/2008: The view point of the religious community with regards to why
children must be taught religion in schools has moved significantly
over last 100 years in response to societies more liberal
enlightenment; an enlightenment which has publicly challenged two
thousand years of religious authoritarianism.
The original
religious community viewpoint, born out of complete authoritarianism
and the desire for total control over the thoughts and deeds of all
individuals was: ‘we have to make them aware of the Holy Spirit
to save them from themselves and to ensure they go to heaven and
not hell when they die’.
This was, of course, a very effective
psychological control tool for the despotic religious regimes of the
dark and middle ages.
As time moved on, society matured. People began
to see the above as repressive and questioned its authenticity. Once
reformation had advanced to the stage where questioning religious
belief did not carry the death penalty or imprisonment the questions
started to flow. The above stance became an embarrassment to the
religious community. In response, the religious reason for the need
to teach religion to children shifted and became: ‘We need to
teach religious education to children in order to be able to
demonstrate good moral behaviour’.
The modern day community at large were very quick
to point out that the three books of scripture for the Abrahamic
faiths are not exactly full of good moral guidance. It was
strongly indicated that the activities of the religious elite over
the last 2000 years present very little in the way of good moral
role models. It became popular to point out that moral values have
nothing to do with superstitious religious belief and can be taught
quite adequately without reference to theological scripture.
So, the religious rationale for the need to teach
religion to children moved again to its current position: ‘We
need to teach children about religion because we have to make them
aware of, and teach them to respect, other people’s beliefs.
The fact of the matter is, none of these reasons
ever represented the real reason the religious community want
undisturbed quality access to the minds of primary school children.
The real reason is, and always was, ‘hook em young and hook em
for life’.
I reality, there is not one single rational
reason why religion should exist in the public realm and be taught
to children in schools. We most definitely should not instruct
children that religious views should be respected simply because
they exist. If this were a valid view point, then we should also
teach children to respect the views of racist organisations simply
because they exist, something we should never, and would never
do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 06/11/2008:
Faith schools should be banned nationwide, we must stop this
brainwashing now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTORI post: 04/11/2008: On Monday 3rd November 2008 we learn that a 13 year old girl (who is
married!) is raped by 3 men. When the father reports the rape to the
authorities the 3 men are not charged and the little girl is
convicted of adultery and stoned to death in a stadium in front of
some 1000 spectators.
Do we teach this
stuff in our religious education lessons; in our drive to make sure
that we all understand and respect each others religious cultures?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/03/somalia-rape-amnesty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 04/11/2008: How long does it take to explain religion?
The religious
argument for religious education in schools is that children need to
be informed about the existence of religious belief and the
diversity of belief in order to understand it and make an informed
decision later in life.
This, they say, represents religious education
not religious indoctrination. So; what do we need to tell children?
The curriculum states that the lessons must be
broadly Christian in nature and may briefly cover two other faiths.
So Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the norm.
Two, one hour lessons, could cover the above and
be classed as a ‘religious awareness module’ in history lessons.
This would cover the subject quite adequately under the banner of
religious education and give the children the required information.
But religious education receives 1 hour a week,
for a 39 week year, for 3 years. That’s 117 hours. 117 hours of
lesson time and a weekly act of worship which is of a broadly
Christian nature cannot be classed as anything else but RELIGIOUS
INDOCTRINATION and as such it is vile and disgusting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John F: 03/11/20008:
An excellent exposé – well done, and keep up the campaign to
keep religion out of schools and to have equal access to Thought for
the Day - atheists have thoughts for the day too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 31/10/2008:
I completely agree with you and your site! Religion is dangerous. I
am absolutely disgusted when I see Religion and Politics intertwined
so ridiculously. I have seen Dawkin's work and Zeitgeist, did a lot
of internet research and all they have discussed and it has really
made me see truth! There is no god ! We have been manipulated,
betrayed and used for centuries. I hope in my lifetime I will be
able to see a world free of religion!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 30/10/2008: Well you are entitled to your opinion about the historicity of Jesus
etc, so I don't want to go on about it. Also I appreciate how you
post all comments and don't edit or veto them. Also we can all agree
he did not rise from the dead and fly into the sky, nor did other
dead people climb out of their graves and walk around Jerusalem
after his crucifixion, like one gospels says, nor did he walk on
water and change water to wine etc, nor was he the creator of a
trillion suns incarnate as a man and born from a Virgin etc who came
to offer himself as a sacrifice - to himself - for our sins so as to
stop himself sending us to eternal torment because our first
ancestors listened to a snake.
I looked at the astrological stuff yesterday and found it a bit
overly complicated - some of it may be accurate, though you again
seem to be over-stating a personal view somewhat - but I don't
really think we need to get into all that to explain why it is a bad
idea to religiously indoctrinate children. Certainly though
religions contain much ancient mythological content that is not
useful today as a way of running your life. If some of it was
originally inspired by theories about the stars that is interesting,
but not the crux of the issue. But it obviously interests you and
this is your site, so that's fine. I think there is definitely
something in the connection with the "death and rebirth" of the sun
, even if just in the way pagan winter and spring festivals were
high jacked for Christian purposes and made to link in with tales of
Christ's birth and resurrection. Re the three magi from the East
(not called kings in the Bible), I personally would just see them as
representing the way even non-Jews are supposed to worship Jesus.
Anyways, re the message of the site, as I say I totally agree with
it. I agree with atheism (the not having a belief in God version,
not "knowing" there is no God) for all the usual reasons and
disagree with any religious indoctrination that then leaves you
having to figure things out for yourself again much later and
painfully reject things you were told were true. No traditional
legends should be taught as total truth in a place supposedly
devoted to educating young minds. It stands to reason. In my
experience, I went to a private prep school with headmaster who was
a C of E priest and had daily prayers and was taught in RE
Christianity was true. At my state secondary school we had regular
vaguely Christian assemblies, and things like Christmas carol
concerts, and I remember the Gideons were once allowed to come and
tell us all to pray and read the Bible every day. In RE in the first
few years we were taught about various religions, but for GCSE
studies it was back to Christianity alone which it was pretty much
assumed we would think it was true. I believe I think instead at all
levels there should be teaching about all major religions as well as
eg atheism and Humanism and major philosophies concerned with how to
live your life and put it into context, such as Stoicism,
Epicureanism and Existentialism. Above all none should be presented
as "the" truth and kids should be encouraged to have opinions and to
think for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 30/10/2008: My mum was a Sunday school teacher and I am an atheist. I tech RE
in school for the children's information and understanding of other
religions and culture. I teach it to hopefully reduce
misunderstandings, not to convert. Faith schools put the fear of
God in me (literally). Unfortunately, C of E schools make up a
sizable part of Education in England, but have less impact on
students than new ACADEMY style schools. Yes to RE, No to new Faith
schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name:30/10/2008:
The Catholic view: We must teach children the Catholic version of
religion in order that children do not grow up ignorant of totally
worthless information. But we must not teach children about sex incase they find out about a vitally important subject. (Bigoted
self-righteous idiots).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 29/10/2008:
Already, we've seen the ugly side of Islam in this country; just
imagine what it could be like in 10-15 years time when these faith
schools are pumping out all sorts of believers. Is our government
concerned? No! - they just want the ability to push the god button.
In other words, drive the unquestioning sheep to war for god and
country.
Expect to see more religion and patriotic BS in the media.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms D: 29/10/2008:
Just come from the bus campaign. I agree that religion should
be for over 21 year old only, that would effect their numbers, those
that have been baptised but don't attend but are still counted. My
catholic up bringing, has left me with a total disbelief in the male
god/Jesus etc but a lingering belief in prayer and burning candles
to female statues. Please help others before they are infected.
think don't blindly believe.
Ms D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy: 29/10/2008:
In response to: No name: 28/10/2008 - Oh dear!
Not all children are lucky enough to make it to adulthood before
falling in to the clutches of some fundamentalist or cult like
religion, many children in this country have the misfortune to be
born in to one.
You are correct, in the past the parents of these children did have
to exclude their children from RE for the very reasons that you
state but because we now have a policy of allowing faith schools it
is no longer necessary. They are now free to indoctrinate their
children without fear they will receive any information that may
cause them to question the faith chosen for them by their parents,
and by their parents before them.
For stories of fundamentalism not hitting the headlines and
information on the devastating consequences of such an upbringing to
some, visit: www.peebs.net
Lucy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notori: 29/10/2008: Re
Ignatius for No name and Orlando:
The Catholic
Church state Ignatius’ letters were written 110 CE and they explicitly
refer to Jesus. But it is Eusebius who tells us when Ignatius lived,
despite having no literature with which to base his date on; and we
know from evidence that Eusebius was a compulsive liar and forger of
facts in favour of creating false retrospective evidence for the
existence of a literal Jesus.
The dates given by
the church via Eusebius for the life of Ignatius are: born 35 – 50
CE died 98 -117 CE.
The myths also say
Ignatius went by the name of Theophorus and he was one of the
children who Jesus took into his arms and blessed.
Did he now? Jesus
is crucified at the age of 30 and was born in 4 BCE so he died in 26
CE. The earliest date of birth for Ignatius is 35 CE, 9 years after
the character in the Jesus story dies!
We have no idea
when Ignatius actual wrote his work, and we only have Greek and
Latin copies; if the original work referred to Christ in the Gnostic
sense, how hard is it to place the word Jesus in front of the word
Christ when making the copies?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando: 29/10/2008:
You are now changing what you say on the site -- saying there
are no " biblical" references to JC before 185ad. You claim on the
site there were no references anywhere and he was invented then by
Gnostics. Just because we may not have, as far as I know, actual
original documents dating from before that period it does not mean
no references ever existed. Why do you assume that so-called
apostolic fathers like Ignatius made no reference to him and imply
any later copies of letters by them mentioning him must be
forgeries? You have no proof of this. Also, as I said, most scholars
think most of Paul's letters are original, and they make references
to Jesus Christ in many places -- like Romans 1 " this is the gospel
concerning God's Son Jesus Christ who in terms of human nature was
born a descendant of David and who, in terms of the Spirit and
holiness was designated Son of God in power by resurrection from the
dead." As I also said, Paul' s letters were - along with a version
of Luke -- apparently included by Marcfion in his early stab at a
New Testament canon in the middle of the 2ndC. Also Celsus, writing
mid 2ndC criticising Christianity mocks Jesus for being a bastard
and so on. If we say no evidence is acceptable unless we have the
original first-edition documents along with full authentication of
their exact date and authorship, then we might as well write off
nearly all figures from ancient history as myths as well. I
thoroughly agree there is very scanty information to go on about a
historical Jesus and it is possible to make a case for him not being
historical, however most scholars think he existed but the real
figure had legends added onto him. The fact there are no reliable
non-Christian writings about him from the 1st C is all one needs to
say to prove he was probably not a very significant character and
the gospels must be full of exaggerations and it cannot be true that
the creator of the universe places paramount importance on us
believing things about him. If you make assertions like " I know he
w
PS re. the witches, I have never heard of people pulling off their
genitals and nipples with pliers as a standard procedure. So as not
to just seem like you are exaggerating a situation which was bad
enough on the bare facts, it might be good to clarify exactly where
this information comes from -- i.e. is this actually recommended in
the malleus maleficarum? Perhaps you could quote a translated
passage? And in what country and period did they actually do this? I
am glad though that you do not repeat things like claims you see on
the internet that about 8 million women were burned as witches for
being independent minded feminists etc, whereas historians suggest
in the whole period of witch hunts it was more like 30,000, some
were men, most were hung nor burned and they were usually unpopular
people accused by their own superstitious neighbours of harming
their crops etc.
PS Claiming JC was invented by Greek
Jews in Alexandria is again to assume the writings of apostolic
fathers and church fathers and of Paul and references to Marcion
putting forward the gospels of Luke etc are all forgeries. The
simple evidence suggests to me that Paul did exist, he did founded
Christian churches around the Mediterranean in the 1st C, he did
meet with people such as Peter and James "brother of the Lord" who
were leaders of an early post-crucifixion church in Jerusalem etc.
Probably all these people had had visions/hallucinations of some
kind and fervently wanted to believe their founder was still alive
in some sense and coming back. We know from eg Pliny's letter to the
Emperor Trajan in the early 2ndC that Christians existed and would
meet on a certain day of the week to pray to Christ. Tacitus in
116ad says : "Christus, from whom the name (Christian) had its
origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius."
Jesus was a very common name at that time and the fact it is the
same as " Joshua" may just be a coincidence. Also if people were
going to "invent" a Christ figure (or adapt a previously allegorical
or legendary one), I can' t see why they would have him crucified by
the Romans like a common criminal. I also can't see why Jews would
invent an allegorical kind of Messiah, when the Jews were hoping for
a flesh and blood messiah who would save them from the Romans and
transform their world.
Orlando
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair: 29/10/2008:
Last person convicted of witchcraft was in 1944
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/campaign-to-clear-the-last-british-woman-convicted-of-witchcraft-485541.html
(We now have convenient new laws and would, presumably, prosecute
her as a "terrorist")
As for RE lessons in school, I think we _have_ to teach
(comparative) religion. Faith is becoming as important in the 21st
Century as political ideology was in the last. We've got to give our
children a grounding in what indoctrination (if you choose to use
the term) others receive so that they can understand them. Otherwise
we end up in the same divisive situation you want to avoid with
Faith schools. By all means campaign for secular school assemblies
(although I always enjoyed the singing) and non-partisan religious
education lessons, but don't undermine education.
And, yes, I'm an atheist too and found RE dull at school. I also
didn't particularly enjoy chemistry, but you don't want to ban that.
Alistair in London (land of bendy buses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flipped: 29/10/2008:
I, with many others spent their whole childhood in the care of the
catholic church. Anyone who had to resort to such levels of
brutality and indoctrination and sexual abuse were not doing so in
the name of any god but for their own political and financial ends.
What I would like to see are two things. First teach the children
all about religion, from it's beginning to its present day, how they
have been used for political and financial ends to enrich those who
claim to speak in "god's" name. Secondly I'd like to see the
Vatican turned into the world museum of human gullibility, to
celebrate man's liberation from the vices of religious domination.
flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah C 29/10/2008:
There seems some confusion here between the concepts of
religious education and religious instruction? Apologies if I've
not read far enough back in the thread, but surely nobody is
objecting to religious EDUCATION, in which kids learn about the
evolution of our understanding of the world and the various belief
systems that have occurred along the way. It is religious
INSTRUCTION, in which kids are told that system A or B is true,
along with a heap of guilt-inducing crap designed for social control
purposes involving rewards and punishments in afterlife, that is
despicable and damaging.
I came in here on the Atheist Bus - great site, great summary info
on the astronomical origins of all theistic religions. The
coincidence that in English sun and son sound the same is just that,
a coincidence, and has nothing to do with the accuracy of the
information in general.
Cheers Sarah C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 28/08/2008: Just found a few very interesting websites:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ -- massive website with lots
of interesting stuff.
http://www.bandoli.no/index.htm -- has some very interesting
info.
http://www.pocm.info/ -- Pagan
Origins of the Christ Myth.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ -- Annotated Skeptics
Bible & Quran.
http://christianism.com/index.html -- scholarship, blasphemy,
heresy, history, etc.
http://www.luigicascioli.eu/en_argomenti_gesu_apostoli.htm
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/jesus_evidence.htm -- Examining
All the Evidence for a Historical Jesus.
Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike: 28/10/2008:
Re Oh dear! 28/10/2008;
There are
many people who believe, quite strongly, that astrologers can look
at the stars each day and collating the planet and star positions
with the date of your birth, proceeded to give advice on what is
going to occur to you today. Do we feel the need to make children
aware of these people and their views as part of the school
curriculum? Do we feel the need to teach them about scientology? No.
We do not because we accept that they are flawed theologies; as are
all ancient religions, now hypocritically classed by the church as
myths, and the 3 major current religions.
You use
the term cult in a way that suggests it refers to non main stream
religion. All religions with followings are cults; that includes
Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 28/10/2008:
Oh dear!
Do you not realise that it is precisely the teaching of comparative
religion in RE lessons that is leading the young to question
religious teachings and move towards a secular approach to life and
tolerance of others? Shutting them away from the realities of what
others believe is not the answer, far from it that's exactly what
the religious do to protect their own viewpoint (you must note that
the vast majority of children excluded from RE are those of deeply
religious parents who view the idea that they will be taught about
"other" views as likely to corrupt their child's mind).
The UK is unusual in the world, in most countries children will have
the dominant religion rammed down their throat and be told all
contrary views are wrong. Here, by law, RE must teach about the
wide differences between the world's religions.
All removing children from RE lessons will do is increase the chance
that at a later date they will fall into the clutches of some
religion, possibly fundamentalist or cult like, simply because they
will have been deprived of the benefit of knowing how ridiculous
religions are that comes only from comparing them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTORI:28/10/2008:
Many thanks for the comments today. They are very much
appreciated.
I need to iron out the issue with
Sun and Son. The articles make no reference to there being a link to
the word Son from the word Sun and does not intend to. When the
article mentions Sun it refers to the solar sun, the Egyptian Sun
God Ra. The latter religions attached this story to the birth of
their God Childs. They shifted the emphasis from the solar entity to
an allegorical human entity. the likeness of the word Sun and Son in
English is purely coincidental.
Many thanks for all the input.
NOTORI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janet: 28/10/2008: Very interesting stuff on the position of Orion, southern cross, and
Sirius, but although in our language today "sun" sounds like "son",
neither the Romans nor the people (whoever they were) who wrote the
gospels were likely to speak or write in English. Does this similar
sound of the words son and sun happen in Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew?
Don't get me wrong, I'd like it to work...
Janet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 28/10/2008: On the Eucharist, Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:
“ Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of
Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their
opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the
Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the
Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, flesh which
suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised
up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their
disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 28/10/2008: As an ex-Catholic I know the danger of teaching religion as fact. I
believed for years that my much loved protestant father was going to
burn in hell. We had some real 'Hellfire & Damnation' Irish priests
in my church. Really vile!!
I was also taught Greek & Roman mythology at school, and of course,
was told it was just stories but a little voice nagged me that there
was'nt much difference between these and my R.I. lesson, just a few
more gods. So teach RI in this way, purely as a way of
understanding our culture & literature. If it is taught fully,
instead of picking out the nice bits (all that blood & gore etc) it
will put off more people than it converts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc: 28/10/2008:
Believing in a personal supernatural entity is indicative of
failure to complete the psychological transition from childhood to
adulthood. A personal supernatural entity serves to alleviate
existential angst by playing the role of a super-parent figure who
can provide comforting support in difficult times and who will
provide a post death happy-ever-after retirement home. Clinging to
this belief is simply a way of avoiding facing up the reality of the
world that stares us all in the face every day. Believers are still
psychologically marooned in a geocentric world that essentially is
just a backdrop for human affairs. Belief is grounded in psychology
and hence believers are prepared to abandon the world as it is
revealed through the maturity of rational thinking and instead
choose to embrace the comforting delusion of a childishly absurd
fantasy world. It is a perverse irony that faith schools actively
serve to hinder a child's passage to maturity.
Marc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm:28/10/2008: Hi Wonderful site.
I would love to distribute the posters around my village. Could you
add what
should be our next bus poster - Don't PRAY in my school and I
promise I
won't THINK in your church
Thanks for providing a voice of reason and sanity.
Have you been to these other links?
http://www.pledgebank.com/thoughtfortheday
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Go to this site for a dose of reason and sanity (note the article
about the
atheist bus):
http://www.randi.org/joom/ and this one to make your blood
pressure rise
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press109.html
Best regards
Malcolm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John F: 28/10/2008:
Excellent and informative expose.
However, to avoid possible confusion arising from the current use of
the term BCE, could I suggest we refer to that period before year
'1' as 'ACE', i.e. the 'Ante-Common Era'?
Ancient wonder at and worship of the seven heavenly bodies observed
during the centuries of the ACE continue to be reflected in the
names of the week in modern French; Lundi = Day of the Moon,
Mardi = Day of Mars, Mercredi = Day of Mercury, Jeudi= Day of
Jupiter, Vendredi= Day of Venus, Samedi= Day of Saturn, and then all
we are left with is the Day of the Sun.
It is a shame that Christians are absolutely incapable of
acknowledging that their preaching of 'beliefs' (as opposed to
facts) is purely and simply indoctrination - let them keep it to
themselves and keep religion out of schools for our children's sake.
John F
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No name: 28/10/2008:
Interesting thoughts on eye colour.
According to the Koran, you will see that it is not possible to be a
Muslim if you have blue eyes:
And evil will be their burden on the day of Resurrection -- The day
when the trumpet is blown; and We shall gather the guilty,
blue-eyed, on that day, 20:101-102
Of course, not every translation will state this!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Templeman: 28/10/2008:
I am very sympathetic to your aims, but just because the English
language has words for Son and Sun that are easily confused does not
make your Egyptian explanation work - they certainly are nothing
like the same in Greek or even Latin.
What your site does show anyone with an open mind is that all
religions borrow supernatural ideas from each other and perpetuate
the nonsense.
Regards
Keith Templeman
Buckingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------