Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part II – Five Minutes

Due to the interest shown in Part I, I have decided to come straight back into the ring with this insight into the mind of Richard Dawkins.

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.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Richard Dawkins Exposed: Part II – Five Minutes

  1. Zoo says:

    You obviously don’t know what a straw man is and your brain is impervious to logic or reason. His points about people, including religious people, being atheist about lots of things is completely valid. The majority of arguments to support God rely on not being able to prove that he *doesn’t* exist. That’s not a valid argument and that’s what he’s pointing out. No straw man, just a rebuttal of the initial question.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    I think I stated the flaws in Prof. Dawkins’ five minutes pretty accurately. He states things as fact that are clearly just his opinion. He refuses to give a straight answer to a simple question. That’s not my opinion, it’s how he is conducting himself.

    “The majority of arguments to support God rely on not being able to prove that he *doesn’t* exist.”

    Well that is certainly what Dawkins wants you to think. I would say he is wrong.

  3. Neanderthalman says:

    “Well that is certainly what Dawkins wants you to think. I would say he is wrong”.

    That’s is all well and good, but you have not sufficiently shown that he is indeed wrong. The statements you make simply don’t work; don’t add up in the real world of logic and reason. If you do have a case, by all means make it. So far, you haven’t done anything but put your fingers in your years and go “la la la la la”.

    Your post is suspiciously absent of cohesive logic and solid argument. There isn’t a single relevant or salient point to support your claim that he’s wrong.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    Neanderthalman – I think I have amply demonstrated that Dawkins needs to be investigated about his claims.

    Are you going to allow him to offer his opinions as fact?

    “So far, you haven’t done anything but put your fingers in your years and go “la la la la la”.”

    Sorry you feel that way. I think I have done the opposite.

  5. U M says:

    Stewart,

    I’ve read both your posts on Dawkins, and I think you’re doing the man an injustice in your criticism. In Part I of your expose on him, you critique a video posted on the richarddawkins.net site, but my impression of the site is that it’s a fairly open forum for content related to religion and science. A majority of the material in the forums does not come from him, so I wouldn’t attribute to him the opinions expressed in the postings.

    Regarding Part II, I think you would do your readers a better service if you critique a longer-form interview or some of his other writings. I would feel obligated to afford a person some consideration when being asked rapid-fire questions, so I would prefer to critique material over which they had the opportunity to lay out their best case. Some ideas just need more explanation than a short sentence or two.

    Notwithstanding the above, continue being skeptical of Dawkins (as well as everything else) and sharing your thoughts.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    U M – thank you for your comments.

    I hear what you’re saying, but I intend to do a thorough job as time goes by.

    Part I is more exposing his website as not being a ‘clear-thinking’ oasis, albeit based on one example, but I’ve only just begun! Part II is more Dawkins-specific, of course.

    In the coming weeks I hope to critique much more from his books, website and TV appearances.

    I find it pretty easy because he ties himself up in muddle, inconsistencies and inaccuracies. I don’t think he’s a deliberate fraud, I think he believes what he says and he attracts millions to him that are desperate for answers that don’t involve the supernatural.

    “Notwithstanding the above, continue being skeptical of Dawkins (as well as everything else) and sharing your thoughts.”

    Thank you. Keep checking back.

  7. Al says:

    “The Gospel makes complete sense”

    Maybe it does to deluded wack jobs, but to any intelligent, reasonable person, its nothing more than a fairy story from an ancient fictional book, written, designed and executed by men to subjugate and subdue – of which you seem to be a fan, seeing as you’re a proponent of Genesis etc.. That you are gullible enough to believe these fictional works speaks volumes.

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

    Please, wake up Stewart! If your premise were correct, why is there no documented evidence of ghosts, poltergeists etc.? That’s right, because they don’t exist…just like your God. Speaking of the word God, Albert Einstein is oft’ misquoted as a “believer”. However, he only used the word God as a metaphor for the, shall we say less than sparkling readers of his works; his best quote is a perfect rebuttal to your comment above…

    “Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.”

    When you actually engage your brain and think about what he said, it makes perfect sense. At least it does to someone with an open mind, but you don’t really fit that description, do you Stewart?

  8. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks, Al.

  9. Martin Baker says:

    Exposed? Exposed as what? Sorry but this is all rather childish and amusing.

    I’m really curious whether you apply the same skepticism when reading about talking snakes and Noah’s Ark in the bible?

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Exposed as a charlatan, religious zealot and danger to civilisation, Martin.

    I apply the same scepticism when considering many things.

  11. Al says:

    I see no pithy comeback or pitiful “evidence” to present me with this time, Stewart. Finally realised how silly you’re being, or have you run out of ideas (you only had one anyway) on what to say in response?

  12. Martin Baker says:


    So does that include the bible?

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    Martin Baker – “So does that include the bible?”

    Some of the things are unbelievable if you’re an atheist and/or brought up on state education and the BBC.

    On closer examination, it’s the Theory of Evolution that looks stupid.

  14. Martin Baker says:

    More wild claims and an evasion of the question.

    I’m outta here because if you’re just going to spout your views instead of answering a very simple question, there’s absolutely no point.

  15. Stewart Cowan says:

    Martin – don’t be so grumpy. Atheism is doing you no good, man.

    Your very simple question was “So does that include the bible?” in ref. to applying scepticism.

    I have only been a Creationist for 4 or 5 years, so clearly I was either a sceptic or untrained in the truth about evolution theory.

    I’d say I was ignorant of:

    a) the weakness of Darwinism and

    b) the truths of scripture

    If I hadn’t been sceptical, I wouldn’t be trying to find out the truth for myself.

    That’s ‘clear-thinking’!

  16. Jaqueline says:

    “On closer examination, it’s the Theory of Evolution that looks stupid.”

    You obviously haven’t looked close enough. Otherwise you’d see that there is far more evidence for evolution than for your magic sky fairy.You can hardly call your blog a “clear thinking oasis” when you have antiscientific invective coming from a dimwit like you Stewart.

  17. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello Jaqueline,

    “You obviously haven’t looked close enough.”

    Closer than most.

    “magic sky fairy”

    Boring cliché that ridicules the one trying to be prideful of their alleged ‘atheism’.

    BTW, I don’t call my blog a “clear thinking oasis”. Someone beat me to it and it’s a nasty place.

    “dimwit”

    You’re just rude, you are, like most Dawkinsians. Did you evolve that way and if so, what purpose does it serve?

    Man cannot live by bread alone. Repent and live.

  18. Torrie says:

    perfect examples of strawman argument and quote-mining. sicko christians!

  19. Stewart Cowan says:

    Torrie, are rudeness and name-calling pre-requisites for becoming an ‘atheist’. Is this one of the five pillars of humanism?

    What are the other four? This might make a good post…

  20. I’ll take Heaven over Hell, I’ll take Jessica Rabbit over Minnie Mouse! So what? Given a choice of two fictional options I can pick the one favorable to me.

    When Dawkins speaks of his small potential for “God” it sure as hell isn’t Jesus Christ he’s speaking about! Even IF there were some sort of “Creator”, to say that THAT Creator God is Jesus Christ is a million light year stretch! Why not Allah? Why not Thor? You say the “God of Creation” is Jesus? PROVE IT! Your opinion and arrogance are the only proof you have of that!

    In fact ALL religions are merely systems of control that derive their authority from spurious claims of linkage and representation of a God that only MIGHT exist. What they ARE is SCAMS! Protection Rackets! Ponzi Schemes! The clever taking advantage of the credulous, follow the money, it ALWAYS rises to the top. Just like it has since the very first Shaman claimed he had “Special Powers” and the other fools in the tribe bought it!

    Morals come from God? Baloney! There’s a plethora of proof throughout history , in a mountain of statistical data and in the scandal sheets to squash that claim. Our morals developed over a very long time and for many reasons that are way too complicated to establish here. Fortunately, for you, “Duh, God Did It” doesn’t take up much space.

    The Bible is a fraudulent document. Full of forgeries, interpolations, deliberate changes to further various agendas, more mistakes of copying then there are words in the whole library, hundreds of irreconcilable contradictions, bad science, bad history and complete whole cloth fabrications to say nothing about all the myths and oral traditions “borrowed” from surrounding previous and contemporary cultures, Good joint paper? May I suggest bird cage liner of wiping your… uh… messes.

    The Gospel makes sense? To those delusional enough to find meaning in it. The Qu’ran makes perfect sense to Muslims yet you dismiss that as false. So the Gospels are true to you… SO WHAT? That and 99¢ will get you a bag of chips!

    We, atheists, do NOT say there’s NO GOD, we say it hasn’t been PROVEN… by YOU, the ones making the claim who bear the burden of proof. But, even that “God”, that’s not “Your God”, that one is as phony as a $3 Bill! A “God Product” A Marketing Tool, like Heaven & Hell. When you think of the “Gods” of the Organized Religions Yahweh, Jesus and Allah think Ronald McDonald, Wendy and The Burger King! Think of yours as McJesus!

  21. OH! P.S. NOTHING… fails like prayer! 100% inefficacy rate! Unless you are a superstitious fool and attribute hits to God and ignore or explain away the misses like the 75,000 or so Christian children that die each year despite their and their parents desperate appeals to a non-existent Jesus Character. Or the child of parents that withhold medical treatment to prove to Jesus how deeply they hold their faith only to have their child die.

    The list is endless. “Jesus” answers prayers about as often as a flipped coin or lucky rabbit’s foot

  22. Stewart Cowan says:

    Yes, I think most religions are scams. Some science is under the control of power-crazed charlatans too, as we have seen in ‘Climategate’. There’s a lesson just there in why not to put all your trust in ‘science’.

    Every society has ‘religion’ in one sense and its moral code would seem to derive from it. We were very fortunate in the West having a Judeo-Christian system that led to laws largely based on fairness and justice. As Christianity in the West wanes, so does justice. They are very much connected, because we are seeing increasingly large numbers of manmade laws (we’ve had about 3,000 new laws in the UK since 1997) which are causing division in society and reducing freedom.

    You have the liberty to believe any god you like (1 Cor 8:5)

    5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

    6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge:

    You might exercise your body and your mind, but if you ignore your spiritual side and don’t exercise faith the you’ll lose sight of what’s real.

  23. Oops! Like the 75,000 or so Christian children that die each year of cancer despite their and their parents desperate appeals to a non-existent Jesus Character Sorry

  24. Stewart Cowan says:

    This is a fallen world. Bad things happen to each and every one of us. The human genome is deteriorating and disease seems rife now.

  25. Biblealsosay says:

    You prove that’s it’s more about apologetics and protecting your vested interest than facts when you make statements like this

    “Every society has ‘religion’ in one sense and its moral code would seem to derive from it. We were very fortunate in the West having a Judeo-Christian system that led to laws largely based on fairness and justice. As Christianity in the West wanes, so does justice. ”

    That’s baloney!

    Religion & Incarceration
    http://tinyurl.com/cbfpuq

    There’s still Justice, there’s also a lot of hypocrites doing time. America is the MOST religious country in the western world and we have the highest prison population, odd isn’t it?

  26. Biblealsosay says:

    To all who are teaching, promoting and propagandizing the dogma that one MUST believe in God in order to be a Good and Moral person and that without God one is Immoral, your teachings and declarations are false! 

    There is an abundance of data that proves that Atheists are every bit as caring, generous and altruistic (perhaps even more so) than their religious counterparts. There are Hundreds of Secular Organizations and completely Atheist Organizations and individuals that match the good works of the Church and the religious.

    When the religious are good, atheists are equally as good, however, when atheists are bad, the religious tend to be worse!

    A study of current statistical data and history proves this.

    Current Statistical Data:
    Various polls and studies such as Pew, Barna Group, Gallup, Zogby, CNN, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and more show that Atheists are in actuality MORE MORAL than their religious counterparts! (Please do not take our word for any of this check the data yourselves)

    1) The LEAST religious Countries are the MOST Peaceful in the world

    2) The Divorce rate among Atheists is the LOWEST in the Nation with the HIGEST being among Fundamentalist Christians

    3) The Christian Abortion Rate is as high as the National average with the Catholic rate even HIGHER! – “young unmarried women graduating from private religious schools are actually more likely to get abortions than their secular counterparts”

    4) Atheists are the LEAST REPRESENTED group in the Nation’s Prisons (In Ratio), they supply LESS THAN 1% (0.21%) Christians, however, are THE MOST REPRESENTED (In Ratio) with Catholics at approximately 39% Protestants at 35% filled out further with the other Christian Denominations and Minority Religions.

    5) “Red States”, those that vote consistently with the Conservative Republican/Right Wing/Christian Fundamentalist agendas and the areas highest in concentrations of those with declared Christian beliefs, purchase THE MOST Online PORN!

    Historical and Contemporary Immorality of the Religious:
    Religions and the religious, while claiming the moral high-ground, have a long list of transgressions of morality. Throughout history and today immoral acts of every kind and severity have been and are carried out “In The Name Of” their religion and many, many more “In Spite Of” their religion. The numerous examples of record establish a true picture that serves to significantly dilute any claims of “Superior Morality” due to a “Foundational Moral Grounding” or “Moral Compass”  that one can only get from a god. The message that morality comes from a god and a religion and that non-theists are immoral, taught at the pulpit as a statement of fact, is completely spurious. One only needs to go back through the history books and scan the modern media to ascertain the veracity of this claim. 

    Recent Historical and News Item Data:
    In the past few decades we have seen thousands  of  examples of the failure of religion’s so-called “Superior Moral Foundation” or “Moral Compass”

    • The thousands of cases of Child Molestation by Priests and Pastors
    • The subsequent cover-up perpetrated by the Catholic Church with full knowledge and complicity at the highest levels including the Pope
    • The thousands of reported thefts of funds from churches by the Clergy
    • Reports of sexual misconduct of Priests and Pastors
    • The frauds committed by Televangelists on a consistent basis
    • The Scandals of Sex, Money and Hypocrisy most notably Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch, Peter Popov, Todd Bently, Kent Hovind, Lonnie Latham, Richard Roberts and most recently Father Alberto Cutie, etc.
    • The similar Scandals of Pro-Christian/Pro-Family Values Senators and Congressmen again most notably Sen. John Ensign, Sen. David Vitter, Sen Larry Craig, Congressman Bob Livingston, Congressman Mark Foley, Congressman Tim Mahoney and even Democratic Christians Pres. Bill Clinton, Sen. John Edwards etc.
    • And many, many more…………

    Past Historical Data:
    Throughout history most organized religions, perhaps most notably Christianity, has proven itself to be Murderous, Torturous, Violent, Deceitful, Intolerant, Divisive, Judgmental, Forcible, Intrusive and against this country’s basic principles of Freedom and one’s most basic right to their individual pursuit of happiness. We have seen:

    • Centuries of Wars, Holy Wars, Crusades and Inquisitions as tools of FORCED CONVERSION. 
    • Genocides and cultural/ethnic (religious) cleansings
    • The brutal conquest of the indigenous peoples of the Americas
    • Southern Christians fought to keep their slaves citing the Bible as their justification.
    • The mistreatment of the “Freed Slaves” highlighted by the formation of the KKK with its terror, murders and hangings
    • The Catholic Church aligning itself with the Nazis and doing nothing to stop the Holocaust 
    • Sectarian and denominational fighting including violence against the “Heretics” such as Burning at the stake, Beheadings and various other torturous executions
    • Suicide bombings, assassinations  and other terrorist activities carried out to further religious agendas

    These are just a few examples. The list is long. Add to it the list of atrocities that even if not done directly “In the name of religion” were carried out by the religious IN SPITE of their religion and its supposed superior moral guidance and foundation. 

    Deep hatreds and animosities have existed for thousands of years with either the religions directly promoting the divides or the religious acting out in spite of the teachings of their religion to act differently, a result of various “Interpretations” of the texts to find justifications.

    Current Societal Data:
    Today there are states where an Atheist cannot hold Public Office (Which is Unconstitutional), or even serve as a witness at trial! A 2006 University of Minnesota study/poll determined that Atheists are “The most Reviled, Despised and Mistrusted group in America”. All a result  of fraudulent propaganda aimed at disparaging the non-religious, propagated and disseminated by the Clergy. Through the Centuries and till this day Non-Believers are the victims of Discrimination, Social and Financial Pressure not to mention Slander and Defamation!

    For example:

    • “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” – George H.W. Bush

    • Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!……. “This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God,” Davis said. “Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

    Summary:
    There have always been atheists. Long before there were those that did not believe in God there were those that did not believe in Gods, but in years past not believing could be fatal! The wording 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes, believed to be “Closet Atheist” out of necessity, chose for his tombstone:   “Bene qui latuit, bene vixit.” – “He who hid well, lived well.”

    We Hide No More!

    Your belief is that every person is born with “Free Will”, on this we would agree, however, you believe in God and that Morality comes from God while we reject that notion in that we do not believe a God exists nor see the reason or need for there to be one as a basis for morality. Our stance is completely confirmed and corroborated by the data.  We believe ethical behavior, compassion for others, a desire for equality and the truth is inherent in all mankind.

    As laid out in this Nation’s founding documents we want our government, military and schools to be neutral to belief systems and represent ALL citizens as Americans, not by religions or sects. We want to be governed by logic and reason and with representation of ALL equally. We do NOT want to ban or outlaw anyone’s freedom of religion. The so called “War on .. “(insert your religion here)” is only us protecting our freedom FROM religion as guaranteed us by the Constitution Of The United States and us exercising our right to express our “Free Will”  through the use of logic and reason, independent thoughts and ideas in guiding our lives, while still following all the rules based on equality for ALL Americans regardless of personal beliefs.

    We herby formally request that you Cease and Desist from disseminating this  spurious, baseless, fraudulent and slanderous message of ill will and bigotry against those who consider themselves non-theists.

  27. Stewart Cowan says:

    Biblealsosay,

    There is no need for people who believe we are descended from slime to have a stringent moral code. Survival of the fittest is incompatible with Christian morality. I put it to you that so-called atheists do have some feelings about the eternity beyond this life and think good works will help them.

    Good works are not enough for salvation.

    The last two prime ministers of the UK have claimed to be Christians, yet their works completely betray them.

    If you expect me to defend the Church of Rome, you’ll be disappointed.

    I don’t know of many patriots in the USA that are ‘atheists’. That’s my experience. There doesn’t seem to be a large enough sample size in the UK to be able to tell!

    There have always been those who have rebelled against God, but when they get into a position of control, very bad things happen. See Communism, Nazism, Marxism and other atheistic real-life (and death) experiments for proof.

    We believe ethical behavior, compassion for others, a desire for equality and the truth is inherent in all mankind.

    Without an eternal perspective and spiritual guidance, how do you know what is ‘ethical’? Humanists believe that quality of life is more important than life itself and so support euthanasia and abortion. Is that compassion? In a warped sense, perhaps, but I find it very peculiar that people who think that this life is all there is would deny this brief opportunity to others.

    To think you can have morality “corroborated by the data” isn’t realistic.

    My intentions are pure, not “spurious, baseless, fraudulent and slanderous message of ill will and bigotry against those who consider themselves non-theists.”

    I will not Cease and Desist from trying to steer souls in the right direction. Everyone has a soul and they never die. This life is not the end.

    Your conscience is from the Almighty – that’s how you have a sense of right and wrong. But ungodly men can effectively assume control.

    “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

  28. Torrie says:

    great examples biblealsosay, thanks!

  29. “I will not Cease and Desist from trying to steer souls in the right direction. ” Well, then I will not cease in remind you that you are a delusional, empty-headed, automaton that believes a fairy tale, worships a cardboard cut-out “God Product” as propagandized in a fabricated, fraudulent book of agenda

    The Truth is, that ALL organized Religion, including yours is a complete fraud.

  30. Stewart Cowan says:

    Biblealsosays,

    May I ask your motive in all this?

  31. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘May I ask your motive in all this?’

    I wouldn’t presume to speak for another commenter but what B-says says looks to me like a counter to the religious conspiracy against truth which seeks to control our minds through fear, and to the collaborators, witting or witless, in that appalling conspiracy.

    Just guessing.

  32. Stewart Cowan says:

    But Jim, the conspiracy is the other way round. The truth is being distorted all around us. Compare today’s attitudes and beliefs to when we were young:

    God’s way: the father is the head of the household.

    Today’s way: everyone is equal and nobody is in control, except the state. Children (the ones who still make it past abortion and contraception) have rights over their parents and can be treated secretly in clinics. Proper chastisement is discouraged. Grandparents are generally surplus to requirements. British children deemed unhappiest in Europe.

    God’s way: a man will leave his mother and father and find a wife and the twain shall be one flesh. Adultery is a sin.

    Today’s way: just go and have sex with whoever or whatever you want. Single mothers and children in poverty and emotionally scarred. Men are increasingly sidelined. STDs are rife; depression is rife. Just misery, basically!

    If you haven’t guessed. Today’s way is the devil’s way – he wants us to be as miserable as he is; miserable as sin.

    The truth is that we are ALL following a religious/spiritual agenda – if not Almighty God’s then Satan’s.

    “The truth will set you free.”

  33. Jim Baxter says:

    I’m afraid I can’t see it that way Stewart. Religion was born of ignorance but quickly comandeered by the ruthless who saw its usefulness for political control and their personal gain. Hence the continual commands to believe, – have faith or else. Something very temporal about those demands and threats.

    It’s a conspiracy all right, just a really old one. And there are those who still ready to be its victims.

  34. Stewart Cowan says:

    Well, Jim, I’d be surprised if there has ever been a time of ignorance comparable with parts of Britain today. Spirituality is a fundamental part of the human being. Repressing it won’t make the world a better place. It’s probably a cliché by now, but it never made Communist and Marxist countries better places for the people (whether religious or not).

    As you have acknowledged before, many people have used religion for there own ends.

    If everyone lived as Christ taught would the world be a better place? Of course. The problem is that people want to sin. They ignore the ‘still small voice’ that tells them not to. Because sometimes immediate carnal gratification wins out against long-term spiritual welfare.

  35. Jim Baxter says:

    Stewart,

    Sin is a political device to give the little people something to worry about. It keeps them in order, it dampens human envy and keeps them tolerant of their otherwise empty lives, it keeps them working to enrich the powerful. The powerful have always done exactly as they pleased.

  36. JJim Baxter says:

    As for this: ‘God’s way: the father is the head of the household.’

    Yes, the good old days when the head of the household could beat his wife and abuse his children as he saw fit with complete impunity, consort with prostitutes and carouse with whomsoever while his unfortunate family cowered in fear of his mood when he got home. And all the time posing as a God-fearing pillar of the community.

  37. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    ‘Sin is a political device to give the little people something to worry about. It keeps them in order, it dampens human envy and keeps them tolerant of their otherwise empty lives, it keeps them working to enrich the powerful.’

    It is not a concept of sin in the ‘proles’ which leads them to be willing participants in their own pointless existence of making the rich richer, it is a combination of deliberately pathetic education, moral relativity being taught to them from their earliest days, a dreadful capitalist system of government and a narrowing of a person’s options because of their sinfulness, e.g. A teenage single mother with two children, no money, job or qualifications is unlikely to excel, just as a young man with a penchant for lager and fighting will not go far either. Your idea of the ‘little’ people being made to doff their caps to their betters, because they have been indoctrinated with a foul, religious concept of right and wrong, and they should know their place, does not bear the most cursory scrutiny. People are taught that there is no such thing as sin, if it feels good then do it, ‘God is dead’ and numerous other such nonsenses, virtually from birth.

    I thing it needs little argument to prove that the UK is now a vastly more secular and even irreligious place than it was just 50 years ago. If religion were being used to ‘keep them in order’, as you say it does, why the sky-rocketing levels of the most vicious and wicked crimes, why all the family breakdown, why all the unwillingness on the part of the prole to do as he is told? The envy which you think has been dampened is rampant, and is encouraged to be so by teaching children they can be the next Beckham or Jordan, and be fantastically rich, not by hard work or endeavour but by a shallow idolatry of fame or willingness to prostitute oneself.

    Take it from me, a prole, one of the ‘little people’, the vast majority of my kind are outrageously unaware of their own sinfulness, because they drown their consciences with drink and drugs, easy sex of all varieties and (not-so) clever theories about how religion is keeping them back from achieving the inevitable success that is just around the corner, just after the next Giro or miserly, wage-slave pay cheque.

  38. JJim Baxter says:

    English,

    ‘Your idea of the ‘little’ people being made to doff their caps’

    You allow your predudice to infect your reading, and not for the first time. Where did I mention cap-doffing or anything like it? The idea of sin was imposed by the poerful on the weak to keep weak down but hopeful that their sufferinmg will mean something when they are dead. It won’t.

    ‘If religion were being used to ‘keep them in order’, as you say it does,’

    And again. I didn’t say it does: I said it aims to.

  39. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    ‘If religion were being used to ‘keep them in order’, as you say it does,’
    And again. I didn’t say it does: I said it aims to.

    I’m afraid you didn’t say it aims to, you did say quite unequivocally ‘Sin is a political device to give the little people something to worry about. It keeps them in order.’ in an earlier post. (2nd Dec 2009, 9.26 AM)

    The fact that you talked of ‘the little people’ and contrasted them with those who are enriched by power, and that they acquiesce to this process because of religion is the reason for the ‘cap doffing’ analogy. I did not intend the reader to consider it a quote from yourself and I think a thorough reading of both our recent posts should make this abundantly clear.

    You call me prejudiced. I have not pre-judged either you or your position, but I am beginning to come to an informed opinion.

  40. Stewart Cowan says:

    I can’t add more to your comments, English, of December 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm. It is painfully obvious that sin exists and that the consequences can be devastating.

    Jim, when you equate the concept of the male as the head of the household with domestic violence, you sound like the typical feminist. I’m sure that wasn’t your intention?

  41. JJim Baxter says:

    ‘I have not pre-judged either you or your position, but I am beginning to come to an informed opinion.’

    English,

    I can put up with anything but being judged a feminist (hi Stewart) or a Marxist. Anything else is fine, by comparison.

  42. Jim Baxter says:

    Must lose that exra J. I have a writing-stutter you know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>