Humanists and Germans don't like it up 'em

Humanists have the same attitude. I cannot leave comments on the blogs of the first two people whose names are at the foot of that anti-pope letter in the Guardian. I have been banned from Richard Dawkins’ blog and the moderator of the blog of delicate flower, Stephen Fry, doesn’t approve my comments.

Mr Fry is proud to be “hated” by the Daily Mail, but the moderator doesn’t accept my negative comments, which are, of course, not hateful. The first comment is this,

What happened to freedom of speech? I think it is absolutely ridiculous that a newspaper can go about accusing Stephen of “fuelling a campaign of hate” simply because he objects to the Pope visiting as a head of state. Stephen is just as entitled to his opinion as the next person…

Unless the next person disagrees with the fragrant Stephen on his fluffy bloggie-poo.

A major American humanist is PZ Myers. I followed him on Twitter last year and he replied to one of my tweets in quite a shocking way, saying Jesus buggerin’ Christ. His tweet brought so much traffic to this blog that I reposted a previous blog entry about his attempts to get his supporters to skew a poll on CNN’s website, which they did. Myers blocked me from following him on Twitter.

They don’t like it up ‘em, these humanists!

From this philosophy, developed by Scottish amateur geologist, James Hutton, assumptions about the earth’s past are made – that is, assumptions based on a philosophy and not on scientific evidence.

For example, when a modern geologist sees a massive canyon with a tiny river running through it, he assumes that this tiny river carved out the canyon, and of course, that would have taken millions of years. This assumption is based on a particular philosophy which has become the predominant one and so the assumptions are taken as facts. They aren’t facts, they are assumptions, based on the philosophy that “the present is the key to the past”.

By believing in uniformitarianism, the scientist is presented with a big problem. He has to make the evidence fit the philosophy. So, a tiny river must have carved out the Grand Canyon; mountain ranges must have developed over millions of years by tiny, gradual movements of the earth’s crust.

Evolution Theory came along shortly afterwards. When scientists (natural philosophers) knew that evolution was a fact, they had to fit it into their philosophy of long ages and belief that “the present is the key to the past”

We all know that creatures evolve. A mutation in a bug can produce a resistance to insecticide. With billions of insects, one such mutation is possible; indeed can be expected. Natural selection means that most of the planet has life present, but this is due to fairly simple differences, for example, animals with longer fur survive in colder climates and wingless beetles survive on windy islands, where their now extinct winged predecessors were being blown out to sea. When a really big change occurs, such as a beetle loses its wings, it is still due to a very minor genetic change. The information that says “make wings” stopped working. All the information for wings is still in the beetle’s DNA, so that, if some time in the future these wingless beetles were seen to have sprouted wings, it is only because a mutation caused the gene to be switched on again. No amazing, very gradual, process has happened over millions of years to produce these complex wings. The information was there all along. Just like with the blind cavefish that can see again “after millions of years” when the gene pool is improved with blind cavefish from a separate population.

This is the vital information I wish to relay: that these scientists gave evolution abilities which it does not have. They had to in order to fit evolution into their philosophy. The mistakes were compounded. People were further separated from the truth. The layman became blinded by millions and billions of years and therefore believed that anything is possible given a vast amount of time.

It is, of course, theoretically possible, but so are lots of things, like drawing out all four aces from a thousand decks of cards consecutively. It’s never going to happen, though. The life we see around us is far too complex to have developed by random mutations and natural selection. The genetic information which builds complex structures has been there since the Creation. Mutations only enable creatures to evolve from their created state.

This is why we don’t see real evidence of transitional life forms. I discussed Archaeopteryx on Tom Harris’s blog earlier this month. Archaeopteryx is perhaps the best known alleged transitional fossil, even though it is a fully formed bird with wings, feathers and avian lungs.

The fossil record does not support the Theory of Evolution. It supports an ordered creation – one where relatively minor genetic changes enable animals and plants to adapt to various climates, terrains and diets.

To sum up:

Modern science is largely based on an assumption made by an amateur Scottish geologist. As natural philosophers started becoming known as “scientists” in the increasingly materialistic 19th Century, they had to incorporate evolution into their philosophy of long ages while simultaneously rejecting the Creator, or at the very least devaluing Him. This necessitated massively overestimating the capability of organisms to evolve. Tragically, this catalogue of errors is now considered to be the truth by most people: people who know little or nothing of where their beliefs come from, but will defend them anyway. 

Kerala, hand severed of Christian Professor accused of blasphemy

Ernakulam (AsiaNews) – A group of unknown assailants severed the hand and the right arm of a university professor accused of defaming Mohammed months ago. The execution took place yesterday morning in Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam district (Kerala). Sajan K George, president of the Global Council of Indian Christians condemns this “barbaric act” and recalls that “Sharia is not the law of India.”

Horrible and amazing, isn’t it, that even the “Archbishop of Canterbury” supports Sharia courts in the UK.

According to the police, Prof. TJ Joseph, was returning with his family from Sunday service when a group of people in a Maruti Omni van drew up beside him stopping him close to home. After forcing Joseph to get out of his car, they attacked him with knives and swords, then cut off his hand and right arm throwing them away after about 200 meters.

The professor was immediately transported to a hospital in Muvattupuzha and then to another specialized in surgery, where doctors are trying to mend his severed hand. The professor has also suffered deep wounds to his body and is in need of plastic surgery.

Joseph, Kerala, a professor at Newman’s College, Thodupuzha, is free on bail. Last March he had prepared a questionnaire for examinations in the private college and according to the Muslims had included questions offensive to Muhammad.

Even in Britain, a Muslim with a chip on her shoulder can ruin a hardworking family’s bed and breakfast business by claiming to have been “offended”. The couple from Liverpool, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, were thankfully cleared. Their ‘crime’ was to disagree “gently” about religion on their own property. Had they lost, and let’s face it, this has become one crazy country so they might have done, they would have faced a hefty fine and a criminal record. As it was, they are innocent, yet almost lost their business. Had some people had their way, they would probably have lost their hands as well.

“Try serving breakfast to your guests now, you infidel dogs!”

Due to a series of protests by Islamic groups, he was suspended from school. Later, Joseph publicly apologized for his “unintentional error”. Joseph’s mother said that in recent months her son continued to receive threats.

Was his “apology” seen as a sign of weakness?

Meanwhile, the police found the van of the attackers, empty, and “the vehicle registration number is false,” said police inspector P.P. Shams. Some of the detained are activists of the Popular Front of India, a right wing Muslim group, formerly called the National Development Front, which is very strong in Kerala.

Joseph’s sister, Mary Stella, says that “the assailants destroyed the window of our car and pulled out my brother to execute him. My poor mother, who was in the car with us, witnessed the crime”.

The Minister of Education, M.A. Baby has condemned the incident, expressing his displeasure because some have turned the issue of the exam questionnaire into a matter of religious conflict.

Sajan K. George, president of the Global Council of India (Gcoi), condemned the “barbaric act” and demands that “the attackers are brought to justice soon. I hope that – as usually happens – the complaint will not disappear in police records because of threats from Islamic militants in Kerala.”

Sajan K. George gives voice to the whole civil society which “expresses sorrow for these attacks by Muslims against Christians in Kerala. It should be noted that Islamic law is not the law of our country”.According to the Gcoi president Kerala is witnessing a growth of Islamic extremism: “Christian schools are often targeted on the headscarf issue or another issue and unfortunately many schools succumb under pressure. The design of these militants is to provoke peaceful Christian communities and provoke a civil war. The rapid growth of the Muslim population and their influence in elections is increasing safety concerns for Christians throughout the country”.

Here lie the problems. The majority are cowed into submission and hope that in doing so they will be left alone in future. Big, big mistake.

The attack against Joseph has been condemned by several Muslim organizations, including the Indian Union Muslim League (Iuml) and the Jama’at-e-Islami, which calls for a significant response against the culprits. Panakad Hyderali Shiyab Thangal, supreme leader of Iuml, has asked that the perpetrators be prosecuted harshly. And referring to the questionnaire compiled by Joseph, said: “An error can not be corrected by another mistake”.

Of course there are a greater number of so-called moderate Muslims, but the psychopathic ones are unlikely to heed their calls.

The indicted questionnaire however did not include anything that could be construed as against the Muslim religion. The authorities of Newman College, told AsiaNews that in the test, Prof. Joseph tells the story of a fishmonger who, despite hard work, becomes increasingly poor. The monger’s name is Mohammad In his desperation, he spoke to God and also asked his brother why his fortunes were dwindling. His brother told Mohammed:”Why are you calling God, God, God….” Students were asked to specify the punctuation of the narrative.

Islamists will find any excuse to exert their power over ‘infidels’ because they know that the real purpose of Islam is to take the world by force.

The contemptible fools in this country who kowtow to Islam are literally asking for a takeover of our country, whose customs and institutions are built from altogether different values. Those born-again militant “atheists” stirred up by the likes of Richard Dawkins, whose raison d’être is now to see people leave religion, are Hell-bent on reducing Christianity’s influence, while Islam is growing in strength. He is also a contemptible fool, unable to see the damage that his own militant religious activities are creating.

The people of this country have to make a decision. Do we want this:

In a BBC Radio Merseyside interview broadcast on Sunday, the couple said they pray for Ericka Tazi, the Muslim who made a complaint against them, and hold no bitterness towards her.

Or an unforgiving society full of violence and intolerance?

It is one or the other.

I have read bits and pieces of Dawkins’ writings and I can agree with Cranmer when he says of him,

He displays a sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy. If one were to critique evolutionary biology in such crass terms, Professor Dawkins would be the first to dismiss one as being an intellectually deficient ignoramus.

This is one of the aspects of Dawkins’ writing that discourages me from giving him any credence whatsoever. To confuse his gentle readers (or perhaps he genuinely is confused himself), he constantly talks about ‘religion’ as if they are basically all the same. The major religions are wildly different. Trying to equate the Son of the Living God with the animal ‘gods’ of Hinduism and the warmongering paedophile Muhammad (as some people call him) is obviously a good way to discredit the notion of religion, but it doesn’t do anything for the pursuit of truth.

It does sell books though. Lots of them.

Dawkins replied to Cranmer privately, who in turn issued A response to Richard Dawkins.

Cranmer writes,

…this blog…appears is fast-becoming the last bastion of unfettered religio-political speech in the United Kingdom.

Well, this one is also available for all opinions to be expressed, but to back up his point, I was banned from Dawkins’ Clear-thinking Oasis last week. Apparently I was trolling. I have been leaving comments now and again for about a year (I think) and have even been told by some of the regulars that I am welcome.

My crime seems to have been talking about the salvation possible through Christ. I occasionally quote some scripture. Now this seems perfectly fair and logical to me based on the fact that the discussion is often about faith and I am responding to the questions others pose.

I suggest that the ‘atheists’ do not like their consciences pricked nor their souls inconvenienced with spiritual matters when there is so much sinning to be done! What else can they do but report me for ‘trolling’?

Here is a rare example of my downright proselytizing, but it was only in reply to somebody who doesn’t understand what saving faith is.

Anyway, I did resolve to spend less time on Dawkins’ blog, so they have done me a favour.

Dawkins begins his letter to Cranmer with this accusation,

I am intrigued by the Christian vitriol that is being thrown in my face after my article in The Times. You, Cranmer, have even suggested that I should be arrested for incitement to religious hatred.

Dawkins believes that religious people should be seen and not heard. Well, not seen either. We should leave our faith at home. He also seems to like labelling plain speaking as ‘vitriol’. I get the same accusations on a number of topics of discussion.

I am constantly tickled, and disturbed, by Dawkins’ insistence that his blog is a Clear-thinking Oasis. Strange, then, that judging from the comments on both blogs, Cranmer’s supporters are generally erudite and polite, appearing to be fully human – while Dawkins’ are rude, crude and give credence to the theory that man evolved from apes!

Firstly, I don’t know whether Dawkins added this article to his website himself, or if one of his evolved apes did, but it is quite bizarre that anyone could believe the angle to this story, which was reported in Popular Science. It is amazing how people who think of themselves as scientists can believe that ‘evolution’ can explain away everything.

For every 300 Muscovites, there’s a stray dog wandering the streets of Russia’s capital. And according to Andrei Poyarkov, a researcher at the A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, the fierce pressure of urban living has driven the dogs to evolve wolf-like traits, increased intelligence, and even the ability to navigate the subway.

Poyarkov has studied the dogs, which number about 35,000, for the last 30 years. Over that time, he observed the stray dog population lose the spotted coats, wagging tails, and friendliness that separate dogs from wolves, while at the same time evolving social structures and behaviors optimized to four ecological niches occupied by what Poyarkov calls guard dogs, scavengers, wild dogs, and beggars.

The guard dogs follow around, and receive food from, the security personnel at Moscow’s many fenced in sites. They think the guards are their masters, and serve as semi-feral assistants. The scavengers roam the city eating garbage. The wild dogs are the most wolf-like, hunting mice, rats, and cats under the cover of night.

But beggar dogs have evolved the most specialized behavior. Relying on scraps of food from commuters, the beggar dogs can not only recognize which humans are most likely to give them something to eat, but have evolved to ride the subway. Using scents, and the ability to recognize the train conductor’s names for different stops, they incorporate many stations into their territories.

You have probably noticed the silliest suggestion, i.e. that the dogs are evolving “wolf-like traits”.

Domestic dogs were bred from wild dogs, silly. And with an increased gene pool due to interbreeding, the dogs will be more like their wild ancestors than domestic dogs are, which were bred to favour certain characteristics.

The spotted coats, wagging tails, and friendliness that separate dogs from wolves can be explained by an experiment carried out by Soviet biologist Dmitri Belyaev, who:

…set up a Russian silver fox research centre in Novosibirsk, setting out to test his theory that the most important selected characteristic for the domestication of dogs was a lack of aggression. He began to select foxes that showed the least fear of humans and bred them. After 10-15 years, the foxes he bred showed affection to their keepers, even licking them. They barked, had floppy ears and wagged their tails. They also developed spotted coats – a surprising development that was connected with a decrease in their levels of adrenaline, which shares a biochemical pathway with melanin and controls ­pigment production.

Biologist Andrei Poyarkov explains,

With stray dogs, we’re witnessing a move backwards, that is, to a wilder and less domesticated state, to a more ‘natural’ state.” As if to prove his point, strays do not have spotted coats, they rarely wag their tails and are wary of humans, showing no signs of ­affection towards them.

Poyarkov reckons that “dumping a pet dog on the streets of Moscow amounts to a near-certain death sentence” and “fewer than 3 per cent survive”.

So there are tough mutts down there. Wily ones too.

Naturally, the dogs have adapted (not evolved) to their new environment. Poyarkov reckons that the pack leader is “not necessarily the strongest or most dominant dog, but the most intelligent – and is acknowledged as such. The pack depends on him for its survival.” With fewer than one in thirty abandoned pet dogs surviving, we can understand why intelligence is so respected by the other dogs.

It should worry us that such bad science is being perpetuated in the popular media. A lie told often enough becomes the truth. I suggest this describes the Theory of Evolution. If there is so much indisputable evidence for it, why are we presented with such desperate attempts to try and convince us/perpetuate the myth?

The other posts to date:

Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part I

Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part II – Five Minutes

Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part III – Indoctrination Camp for Children

They don’t tend to ignore Christmas as a matter of principle. Perhaps they take comfort in Yule being a pagan festival, but whoops, there’s that religion again: you just cannot get away from it. It’s no wonder that some humanists are obsessed to the point that they propose and promote ridiculous ideas.

Ariane Sherine, she of the ‘Atheist Bus Campaign’, is now using children to get at religious people.

As Richard Dawkins states, “Nobody would seriously describe a tiny child as a ‘Marxist child’ or an ‘Anarchist child’ or a ‘Post-modernist child’. Yet children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents. We need to encourage people to think carefully before labelling any child too young to know their own opinions, and our adverts will help to do that.”

Another 'Humanist' anti-religion poster.

I agree that people shouldn’t just accept whatever their parents believe without ever thinking about it, but what Sherine wants, obviously, is for children to grow up, not following their parents’ religion, but denouncing it altogether and becoming a humanist; in other words, exchanging one belief system for hers, and hers seems to be a particularly unpleasant one.

It’s cute how, alongside the names of religions, they have ATHEIST CHILD and HUMANIST CHILD on their posters, when that’s exactly what they want children to grow up to be. They must think folk were born yesterday.

Radio 4’s Thought for The Day has been a target of humanists for a while now. John Humphrys is the latest to join the bandwagon,

Mr Humphrys told The Times: “As a non-believer, I’ve always thought there’s an argument for a secular Thought for the Day — but not because of discrimination. I think we’d get some interesting views.”

What could an ‘atheist’ tell us that could fill us with hope as we get ready to go to work on a cold winter’s morning? For the unbeliever, death is the end. Not much hope there.

Humphrys, who described himself in his book, In God We Doubt, as an “angry agnostic” who could not bring himself to believe in God but could not stand “arrogant atheists”,

So, he’s not even an ‘atheist’. Sheesh! (I don’t believe anyone truly is.)

And the humanists are still nagging away at the educators. They have just succeeded in having Evolution Theory taught in all English primary schools from 2011.

Scientists and humanists had lobbied ministers for the inclusion of evolution in the theme-based timetable.

Professor Sir Martin Taylor, vice-president of the Royal Society, said:

“We are delighted to see evolution explicitly included in the primary curriculum.

“One of the most remarkable achievements of science over the last two hundred years has been to show how humans and all other organisms on the earth arose through the process of evolution.”

What is remarkable is that so many could be fooled by so few who understand so little.

Leonard Stern, writes,

Here’s the problem: The atheists don’t understand that it’s possible to reject scripture as history but still accept it as sacred narrative.

I would say the problem for Christians is that they are cowed by atheists’ ridicule. Christ spoke about Genesis like it was literal, e.g. when talking of the importance of marriage (and quoting Genesis 2) and so should we.

We can count on the new atheists to remind us yet again that the Sumerians had their own version of a flood story (the Gilgamesh epic)

What does the Bible say? There was a global Flood. Many cultures all around the world relate a flood story. Why? Because there was a global flood! It explains an awful lot about our planet that a uniformitarian worldview cannot.

Do Not Covet Thy Neighbour’s Wife, reduces women to property.

Hitchens is so ‘new man’ isn’t he? Except a wife does belong to her husband and vice versa. Successful cultures have men as the head of the family. Hitchens’ mistake is to believe (or wish) that this means women are treated as second-class citizens, which it doesn’t necessarilly.

Religion is ridiculous for Hitchens because, in his view, it means that you necessarily believe that Eve was made from Adam’s rib.

Ribs are the only bones that will grow back.

Wilson really believes, for example, that Noah crammed all those animals on a single boat. I wonder how many times Hitchens has patiently crunched the numbers for his pal, calculating the mass of the animals in order to show that Noah’s task was an engineering impossibility.

The Ark was not an ‘engineering impossibility’. Korean naval architects, using the dimensions stated in Genesis, calculated that it would be extremely stable in high seas. As for the sheer number of animals, it is not nearly as many as people imagine. Like humans adapted to suit different parts of the world, so did the animals. There weren’t hundreds of different people groups on the Ark, just eight people in total. There needed to be just one or two types of cat, dog and bear for example and as they spread and bred after the waters receded, natural selection provided the speciation.

Yet all the professional atheists want to do is take out a Bible, flip to the story of Balaam in Numbers 22:1-35, and demand to know if you believe in talking donkeys.

Why shouldn’t we believe that the Almighty can make an animal talk? He created them in the first place. He made Balaam speak his words as well. Christ ordered devils to leave a man and they entered the Gadarene swine. God can do things that we cannot. It can’t be that hard to understand.

The problem with the “atheist”, and I like to put this word in inverted commas because I don’t believe anyone is totally atheist, (Richard Dawkins has described himself as a 6.8/6.9 out of 7 atheist. That makes him an agnostic!) is that he seems to have a limited capacity for imagining what could be, and is contented to settle for what is. He finds it hard to understand that an Almighty Creator can do whatever he wants.

Christians should stop apologising for scripture and realise that atheists, or rather agnostics, have problems understanding the world around them and the spirit within them.

So basically this icon of our age…

…could well be total nonsense.

Of course it is. The Theory of Evolution is nonsense.

UPDATE 3/10/09 – I see the Mail’s headline now reads, “First ape woman suggests human ancestors may have started walking in pursuit of sex.”

“Some scientists” apparently believe this. Other creatures have managed to survive perfectly well by staying on all fours (sixes, eights, etc.). Not necessarily when ‘in the act’ of course, but that’s a different matter altogether.

Experts, schmexperts.

This camp in Somerset that Dawkins is financing is not ’secular’ as claimed but will condition youngsters to ‘think’ just like Dawkins. That is not secular, but dogmatic and delivered with religious fervour!

There will be an “Invisible Unicorn Challenge” where a tenner featuring Charles Darwin will be awarded to any youngster who can disprove the existence of unicorns in the camp.

The article states that Crispian Jago, an IT consultant, is hoping the experience of this atheist camp will enrich his two children.

“I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds,” he said this weekend. “I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think.” (my emphasis)

Samantha Stein, who is leading next month’s camp, said, “we are not trying to bash religion, but it encourages people to believe in a lot of things for which there is no evidence.”

She doesn’t understand, or is not admitting to understand, the Professor’s rude, crude and not wholly logical unicorn, teapot and Flying Spaghetti Monster analogies.

“Instead of singing Kumbaya and other campfire favourites, they will sit around the embers belting out “Imagine there’s no heaven . . . and no religion too”.”

So in an age where youngsters are already having their childhoods taken from them by a corrupted education system and media, along comes Dawkins to tell them there’s no Heaven.

Of course, Dawkins lumps all religions together and so his followers think that anyone who follows a religion is a nutcase; out of touch with reality-according-to-Dawkins.

Here are some comments to the camp story on the Professor’s ‘clear-thinking oasis’:

“I only wish my 10 year old niece was going to this camp instead of church camp.”

“These camps are a great idea. My daughter is only a year old but, we’ll have her go when she’s old enough. Let’s hope they catch on.”

The likes of Dawkins have so managed to spread their fear and lies that a fair slice of the general public appears to believe that learning about Christian beliefs and behaving according to its values is a bad thing.

And you wonder why 12 year olds are up for murder or hanging themselves?

He recently made this programme for the BBC – Five minutes with: Richard Dawkins.

He doesn’t seem to know what questions are going to be asked and so this gives us a better idea what he really thinks especially as he only has 300 seconds to fire out answers and try to make himself look like he knows what he’s talking about.

Is he as ‘clear-thinking’ as he likes to think he is? Let’s find out…

4.56 – He said prayers as a child “all the time,” but he actively started disbelieving in the existence of God about 15 or 16.

4.39 – He “would not be the slightest bit tempted” to pray in any circumstance.

Sorry, Professor, but that won’t do. I personally know a chap, a non-believer, never known to have prayed before, who did so when he found out his newborn son might die. His wife asked who he was praying to and he replied, “I don’t know”.

4.32 – He is not “absolutely certain” that there isn’t a god. He muddles the issue by stating: “I’m not absolutely certain that there isn’t all sorts of things”.

Sorry, Professor, but that’s not the question. When you were a child, you didn’t pray to “all sorts of things”.

4:21 – In the ‘God Delusion’ he claims to be a 6.8/6.9 out of 7 atheist.
By his own admission, he is not a true atheist, so logically he cannot claim that he would “not be the slightest bit tempted” to pray if faced with danger.

4.14 – “there are many, many things you can’t disprove the existence of”

This seems to be a favourite tactic of his to muddle things; twice in just 46 seconds!

He uses the old Russell’s teapot technique which is quite dishonest in this discussion.

4.12 – “technically we’re all agnostic about millions of things.”

Here he goes again. While it’s true, it’s a red herring; a straw man. We’re not talking about millions of things, we are talking about one thing. Concentrate!

4.05 – “pink elephants”

Yes, we’re all agnostic about those – you’re the professor, after all.

4.03 – “There is no reason to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.”

I agree with this statement, but then, it’s pretty obvious. Why isn’t he a 7/7 atheist if he has no evidence? I put it to you and him that he still has evidence – the kind of evidence the pre-15 year old Master Dawkins had.

When you take the Theory of Evolution apart, there’s actually not a lot of evidence for it, so who’s kidding who?

3.55 – He feels spiritual sometimes. Of course he does – he has a spirit; he has a soul.

3:45 – Would he like there to be a god?

Notice how he does not answer a straight question. He does a lot of that.

3:35 – “What matters is what’s true.”

Absolutely correct, Professor. So why do you muddy things so much and avoid giving straight answers to simple questions?

3.34 – “The Universe doesn’t care what I like”.

Maybe you can’t hold back the sea, Professor, but you want as many people to read your books as possible and think the same way you do. You want folk to give up their beliefs and believe you instead even though you find it hard to give a straight answer.

3.31 – He is offered the choice between oblivion and Heaven. Which does he pick? He picks Heaven for two or three centuries. He clearly doesn’t have enough vision or imagination to perceive what paradise could be like.

For all you followers of Dawkins – if you reached paradise, would you also then opt to completely erase your existence?

3.15 – Asked to choose simply between Heaven and Hell, the Professor struggles. He daren’t give the afterlife any credence, so he tries to laugh it off.

Eventually, he concedes that he wouldn’t want Hell, but only after ridiculing it as being a place for scaring children rather than a very real destination for unrepentant sinners.

2.45 – What does Dawkins think about death?

“Death means the end. It’s like going into a general anaesthetic and never waking up.”

Now, he proposes this as fact, but it is something he cannot possibly know. This gives a clue as to the very real dangers involved with believing this man. What could be more important than your eternal condition? Who in their right mind would let Dawkins influence them in this matter?

2.12 – What motivates him to be good?

He says in a roundabout way what Christ said about doing unto others. He seems to understand, as many people discover, that how you treat others, well or badly, comes back to you.

This is why Dawkins has a problem about Hell. If he believes this principle and the likes of Hiltler and Harold Shipman commit untold acts of evil and then kill themselves, where is the justice?

The gospel makes complete sense. Sin has to be dealt with via a Saviour and repentance or there is literally all Hell to pay.

1.40 – What is the point?

“The point is no less of a point if you don’t believe in God than if you do.”

Actually, professor, unless you happen to be completely right about everything, that statement is completely wrong.

He seems pretty consistent at throwing out totally unfounded statements as fact.

1.16 – What else makes him happy?

He goes on to list some of the things that bring joy and comfort to the human soul.

0.14 – He restates that he is interested in the truth, which is strange considering he wants us to accept so many of his personal beliefs as statements of fact.

0.05 – Dawkins nearly makes it to the end without mentioning “Flying Spaghetti Monsters”.

0.02 – “The only reason for disproving God is that many people believe.”

This is at odds with his other statements about being “agnostic about millions of things”. Let’s be honest. Professor Richard Dawkins is driven to discrediting ‘god’ but without a reasonable case. Sadly, in this day and age, it is what people *want* to hear, whether true or not. Like Dawkins, they avoid the subject of Heaven and Hell. They think: eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

You might not be able to do anything about your physical death, but you surely can about your spiritual death.