This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by David A Robertson

Go to: Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by David A Robertson

How ironic! A website which wants us to campaign against censorship....itself censors me - even though my message was in support. Monty Python could not make this stuff up!

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:02:00 UTC | #427686

Go to: Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 82 by David A Robertson

I entirely agree that this blasphemy law is ridiculous and a limitation on free speech. It will also be used by the PC 'liberal' (?) facists to stop any form of dissent or perceived insult of any religion. This 'law' should be opposed.

However it is a little childish and immature (as well as playing into the hands of those who support the law) to encourage people to 'blaspheme' as much as possible. It then ends up with the kind of inane and ignorant comments that make atheists look like schoolboys.

ANd be careful about the 'silencing people to protect ideas' argument. Does that mean that racist comments should be allowed in order to avoid silencing people to protect ideas?

Having said that - this law strikes me as a very dangerous law, for Christians as well as athiests.

Happy New Year to you all...

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:59:00 UTC | #427685

Go to: Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by David A Robertson

I would love to comment but sadly I've been banned - cue auto-troll.....

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:09:00 UTC | #397310

Go to: A Tale of Two Atheists

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by David A Robertson

It will come as no surprise that I totally agree with Mohler. Armstrong's view is intellectual, rational and religious suicide. At least Dawkins is consistent and coherent.

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:07:00 UTC | #397117

Go to: WHERE DOES EVOLUTION LEAVE GOD?

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 147 by David A Robertson

Allan W - sorry that is a lie. You are very welcome to post on the St Peters website. And there is no 'alternative thread'. We believe in being open minded - which is more than can be said for RD net - where those who don't share the faith are excluded.

You also say that the points I make have been addressed elsewhere. Where? Where is the answer to the Edge quotation? Where is the answer to the question about evidence for Christians killing millions at the request of their God? And you keep talking about falsehoods. Its strange its like your other atheist mantras - if you repeat them enough you think they are true. I have issued this challenge many many times and you still cannot meet it. Give me one example of where I have lied. There may be many times I am wrong but I am not aware of telling a single lie on this website. But you are an empiricist. Yu don't believe in saying things without evidence - so it should not be too difficult to prove that I have been lying. There's a challenge for you.

I actually think that whenever you guys step out of your own wee world - into the real world - you get hammered in debate and discussion. Its why you need this forum to be a closed one.

St Stephen - this IS what he said "When asked by the Edge Foundation.'what do you beleive is true even though you cannot prove it?' Dawkins replied: 'I beleive tht all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution, and therefore cannot underlie the universe'. At bottom,then, Dawkins's rejection of an ultimate Intelligence is a matter of belief without proof. And like many whose beliefs are based on blind faith, he cannot tolerate dissent or defection."

Anyway I am not prepared to waste time debating in a sideline - so when you have the balls and the wit to actually debate like adults and remove the auto-troll I will be happy to answer any questions you have. The only further responses I will make here are if you manage to come up with a lie I have said...

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:08:00 UTC | #396537

Go to: WHERE DOES EVOLUTION LEAVE GOD?

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 135 by David A Robertson

Mark,

Thanks - but you still did not answer the question. Or at least you did. The post was sin-binned because of who I am - not because of the post itself. There was nothing wrong with the post itself.

The bottom line is that anyone who disagrees with the faith position here (and yes it is a faith position) is going to find themselves quickly trolled. 'Moderate your behaviour' - does not mean - stop swearing or going off topic...it just simply means - stop upsetting or questioning us.

As regards substantive points - I raised at least four - none of which have been answered. And then you have the gall to accuse me of not answering (I think you mean 'not answering in the way you want me to). I wasn't actually asked any questions before I was trolled.

Finally Richards point was ridiculous and hypocritical. He does not sideline all posts that go off topic. He allows posts to remain in the main thread which are irrelevant attacks on me, but bins anything that questions his authority. (Why do you think so few non-disciples post here?). And most of all he has refused to answer the charge made in Flew's book that he stated that his belief in the absoluteness of evolution was something that he believed without evidence.

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:57:00 UTC | #396488

Go to: WHERE DOES EVOLUTION LEAVE GOD?

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 123 by David A Robertson

I see that Billy is claiming that I won't debate you here. Sadly I am banned from doing so. To accuse me of not being willing to debate indicates the level of disconnect on some of your thinking!

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:40:00 UTC | #396465

Go to: WHERE DOES EVOLUTION LEAVE GOD?

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by David A Robertson

I'm not sure if this will be worth it because I suspect that I am automatically trolled by the nice kind tolerant open-minded people on this site. But I will - in the hope that this might be left alone - ask two questions -

1) Where is the evidence for the statement that 'Christians butchered millions precisely because they understood their god to demand specific actions'?

2) Eppeist - I would love to respond to your whole comments but until I know that I am allowed to I will restrict myself to the following observation - You write

"At bottom,then, Dawkins's rejection of an ultimate Intelligence is a matter of belief without proof. And like many whose beliefs are based on blind faith, he cannot tolerate dissent or defection."
And here you show one reason for your removal to the alternate comment thread. There is nothing in the conjecture made by RD that justifies your last sentence. You make no argument for it, you present no evidence for it. You make (yet another) emotional and loaded statement, whether to generate a flame war, to gather material you can use elsewhere or for some other reason I really wouldn't know."

If you had read it properly you would have realised that it is not my comment but a quotation from Flew's books (the quotation marks are a big clue). And ironically this website provides more than enough proof for Flew's assertion. How ironic that you justify my being banned because I said that Dawkins cannot tolerate people who disagree with him! Its the atheist equivalent of 'kill those who say Islam is violent'! 'Ban those who say Dawkins is intolerant!"

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:34:00 UTC | #396217

Go to: WHERE DOES EVOLUTION LEAVE GOD?

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by David A Robertson

Once again Atheist fundamentalists prove that they are such sensitive souls that in the words of Corporal Fraser 'they don't liek it up 'em'. Could you please let me know what was so offensive about the following post that it had to be trolled? How pathetic that, rather than answer a perfectly serious point or two, you just have to ban it, so that sensitive atheists will not be upset or have their faith questioned. Grow up.

1. Comment #414214 by David A Robertson on September 12, 2009 at 7:52 am
The Virginian - interesting that you talk about 'vapourous historically false nonsense' and then go on to spout it. 'Christians butchered millions precisely because they understood their god to demand specific actions and punished anyone who disobeyed'. Perhaps you could provide the evidence for this completely mythical statement? (please note the use of the term 'evidence' - this does not mean what you believe or the various atheist myths that circulate).

As for the two pieces themselves - both are theologically and philosophically illiterate. Armstrong's reads as meaningless waffle. Dawkins just repeats his constant mantra - evolution does away with God because God would have to be complex. He also repeats his main article of faith - the laws of physics cannot be broken - a principle which is empirically unprovable. IN this latter respect I fid the following from Flew's 'There is a God' fascinating -

"When asked by the Edge Foundation.'what do you beleive is true even though you cannot prove it?' Dawkins replied: 'I beleive tht all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution, and therefore cannot underlie the universe'. At bottom,then, Dawkins's rejection of an ultimate Intelligence is a matter of belief without proof. And like many whose beliefs are based on blind faith, he cannot tolerate dissent or defection."

Now let the heresy hunt begin, as the true believers leap to the defence of the One True Faith....

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:37:00 UTC | #396188

Go to: WHERE DOES EVOLUTION LEAVE GOD?

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by David A Robertson

The Virginian - interesting that you talk about 'vapourous historically false nonsense' and then go on to spout it. 'Christians butchered millions precisely because they understood their god to demand specific actions and punished anyone who disobeyed'. Perhaps you could provide the evidence for this completely mythical statement? (please note the use of the term 'evidence' - this does not mean what you believe or the various atheist myths that circulate).

As for the two pieces themselves - both are theologically and philosophically illiterate. Armstrong's reads as meaningless waffle. Dawkins just repeats his constant mantra - evolution does away with God because God would have to be complex. He also repeats his main article of faith - the laws of physics cannot be broken - a principle which is empirically unprovable. IN this latter respect I fid the following from Flew's 'There is a God' fascinating -

"When asked by the Edge Foundation.'what do you beleive is true even though you cannot prove it?' Dawkins replied: 'I beleive tht all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution, and therefore cannot underlie the universe'. At bottom,then, Dawkins's rejection of an ultimate Intelligence is a matter of belief without proof. And like many whose beliefs are based on blind faith, he cannot tolerate dissent or defection."

Now let the heresy hunt begin, as the true believers leap to the defence of the One True Faith....

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:52:00 UTC | #396177

Go to: We are born to believe in God

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by David A Robertson

Hardwired to believe in God? Yep....thats what we have been telling you. Human beings naturally believe in God and it takes atheist brainwashing to convince us that our natural instincts are wrong. Rather than Christians needed to start schools in order to brainwash people to our way of thinking - it is atheists who need to take over schools in order to indoctrinate children against their natural instincts.

Hope you are all well - know its off topic but looking forward to reading Richard's latest book....

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:52:00 UTC | #394818

Go to: The Strange Case of Francis Collins

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 121 by David A Robertson

Oh dear - would love to comment in some depth but I'm afraid seeing that the censors have already been out banning such shocking statements as 'Collins is probably the greatest living scientist' I don't think I will waste my breath. But at least allow me to say this - what sychophantic nonsense. Harris writes a piece telling you what you want to hear - you all pronounce it wonderful, the best piece of writing etc, (despite his weak defence of scientific racism - aka his defence of torture) troll those who disagree and then admire yourselves for being so intelligent, reasonable, brilliant in agreeing with Harris - or is it the other way round? When you stop talking to and congratulating yourselves, perhaps you might then understand why you are losing the intellectual arguments and why the New Atheists are regarded, even by other atheists, as the equivalent of religious fundamentalists. Let me leave you with two quotes from your side....the first is from Harris's website

"Any claims by believers that they were once atheist then regained or found religion are totally unbelievable.
An atheist would find it as easy to abandon their skepticism and rationality as a seeing person would find it to purposefully poke out their own eyes."

The second from this website....

" You have done debates all over the world. Have you ever had a clever or interesting argument from the other side"

"No"

RD at the American Atheists Conference 09

A prise for spotting what is unreasonable, illogical and arrogant about both these statements.

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:40:00 UTC | #385634

Go to: Brad Pitt: 'I'm probably 20 percent atheist and 80 percent agnostic'

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 155 by David A Robertson

Sorry - guys and gals....been away slaying dragons.....

Why does it matter whether or not it does anything for clear discussion or rational thinking?
Phatbat - for an article posted on a site which calls itself an 'oasis of clear thinking' the answer to that question should be obvious. Your other point about intellectual debate. is interesting. You don't win on the written debate either...the trouble is that most of you just know that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously not intelligent enough to debate with (otherwise they would agree with you). This means that you are restricted to 'debating' with yourselves. Setting up strawmen which you can then knock down. Generally when it comes to debating with real live people you guys struggle (with the notable exception of people like Hitchens) because you cannot help coming across as know it all fundamentalists who have nothing but contempt for your oppenents. Exhibit one - RD's latest spat with Lennox which he began with one of the most childish and contemptous statements I have ever heard in a debate. It sounds so much better when you just write it downon your own website and don't have anyone to contradict you.

I mean what does it even mean? "Brad Pitt fantasy world"?????? WTF.
It means a world in which Brad Pitt thinks that his opinion is significant - or where 'clear and rational' thinkers, think that it is a 'victory' when a celeb says he is an atheist (or a Christian). Who cares?


127 - Hungarian elephant....thanks...I am inclined to agree..at least with the latter part.

Most kids today would rather listen to the likes of Brad Pitt than some of the leading scientist around... so getting famous people to speak out might be the only real hope for the future.
I'm sorry - but I regard that as pathetic.

How's the new book coming along?
Tyler - first draft is off to the publishers this month...

Reading this thread just reminds me what an ignorant, vacuous, hypocritical, fecund individual David A Robertson is.
Irate...you needed reminding? Sweet....

Celeb atheists are important simply because thousands of people, especially young people, will read or see what they say. It doesn't make it a more valid statement, but it's a free ad worth millions of dollars.
Yep - like the bus adverts....thanks guys...great publicity. Really appreciated...

Oh - just a wee note from Borders in Cambridge. One atheist asked me why I had such a negative view of human nature. When I asked him if he believed that human nature was good, he replied 'yes'. When I asked him for his reasons for this, he said 'I don;t need a reason, why do you need a reason?'. This from someone who was demanding that I produce empirical evidence for God. And who said atheists don't have blind faith!

Have a nice weekend....

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:22:00 UTC | #384079

Go to: Brad Pitt: 'I'm probably 20 percent atheist and 80 percent agnostic'

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 115 by David A Robertson

Thank you Richard for the apology about Cliff Richard and your additional comments. I also totally agree that it is completely irrelevant whether he is gay. I also happen to think that the fact that Brad Pitt thinks that religion works, that we will find out when we get to heaven, and that he is 20% atheist are also completely irrelevant. All of which banalities do nothing for clear discussion or rational thinking.

Quetz - yes - done a couple on 'UnBelievable' on Premier Radio. www.premier .org They were, to say the least, interesting. Some atheists complained afterwards that it was too easy for me. I think they would have prefered that I was hammered by Hitchens. It does seem to me though that in general the new atheists are taking an intellectual and philosophical hammering - hence the backlash from other atheists. Have you seen the latest New Humanist with Terry Eagleton's critique of the 'Ditchins' pheonomena? Would be good to have it posted on here.

Having said that I was speaking down at the Jubilee library in Brighton and was impressed by some of the Brighton humanists/atheists (I believe Barry Duke of the Freethinker was there amongst others). They certainly gave me a run for my money and were by far the best and most articulate group of atheists I have come across in Britain so far. It was a lively, stimulating and fun hour - the best bit was the banter in the pub afterwards. Actually no - the best bit was the two atheists who told me the next day that the whole event had made them realise that Christianity was not unreasonable as they had previously believed and that they would start reading the Bible. Fascinating. Enjoy yourselves in your Brad Pitt fantasy world....

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:02:00 UTC | #382536

Go to: Brad Pitt: 'I'm probably 20 percent atheist and 80 percent agnostic'

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by David A Robertson

77. Adrian - guess that means you can't handle any disagreement. How about dealing with some of the substantive points? Or is that too much to ask?

79. Righton. I did see the comment. And responded to it. What is your point? For the record and to make it abundantly clear - it is of no relevance to me whatsoever - either for or against Christianity or Atheism, whatever any so called celebrity thinks. It does matter to me 'why' they think it and the reasons they give. It is also of considerably more significance when a leading proponent of either position changes their minds - ie. Bart Ehrman on your side and Anthony Flew, McGrath, CS Lewis and AN Wilson on ours.

Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:40:00 UTC | #382429

Go to: Brad Pitt: 'I'm probably 20 percent atheist and 80 percent agnostic'

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by David A Robertson

What a fascinating series of responses - not least from RD himself - who clearly thinks that Brad Pitt is a major coup for the 'out' campaign. But before we comment on the comments lets look at what the new atheist role model actually says. 20% atheist and 80% agnostic....what is that? If you don't believe in God or gods you are an atheist. Apparently we will find out when we 'get there' (one presumes there is heaven - or hell). There is no point in thinking about it (true that atheists do seem to have difficulty thinking) and furthermore 'religion works'. So there we have it - a Hollywood film star tells us he doesn't know if there is a God, that there is no point in thinking about it and that religion works. Just the kind of clear thinking the atheist cause needs. Honestly you could not make this stuff up....it is hilarious and shows how desperate RD is getting.

Guys when will you realise that the default position of Holywood is anti-Christian anyway and that all this nonsense about encouraging people to 'come out' is only stirring things up and just works in our favour. It is beyond parody that you actually think people could not 'come out' as atheists in 2004 but can now. The default position of most of Holywood and most of Europe is anti-religion secularist. Its incredible that you actually seem to be challenging that!

7.

Are you identifying with 'us' now? Us fundamentalist atheists?
Mark - actually yes - in this case I thought I was. I hate celebrity culture and the shallow,dumbed down, ignorant society it represents. And I thought most of you would too. We should argue our cases based on fact, reason, evidence and logic....not what a so called celebrity thinks.

8
And David piss off
Alvorin - thanks for that constructive and insightful comment. Just about the level of the article....

11. Enlightenment - I assume you realise the difference between looking at total numbers of all people and counting celebrity heads?

20.
The God Delusion didn't exactly win over too many fundies either, so did Richard waste his time writing that?
Henry - Yes. Apart from the millions it made, it has been a great own goal opening up a debate where there was largely none, embarrassing many atheists and giving Christians great encouragement.

21.
The latter is important because this sort of thing would have been impossible only a few years ago.
Jos - I know you want to believe this but there is no evidence for this. There are plenty actors, singers etc who have made clear their feelings about religion. It is just not an issue for most people. I fully accept that most people (even in the US) are at the very least, functional atheists.

22. Pobjoy - do you seriously think that Brad Pitts statements above will encourage people to 'think more critically about their beliefs'? If so I despair at your low view of the intellect of your fellow human beings.

29.
And the effect will be enormously multiplied if the 'we' includes a world-renowned film star, a role model for millions of young people who are, after all, the future. Brad Pitt's announcement should be cause for rejoicing, not mean-minded carping.
Richard...are you seriously so out of touch that you think Brad Pitt is (or should be) a role model for millions of young people? Are you really that desperate to get people for your cause that you have to believe such nonsense?

33.
You do realise there are a lot of people who now DO have more respect for atheism for precisely that reason right?
Adrian - do you have any evidence for this statement or is it just wishful thinking? Name one.

41.
he small additional benefit from my point of view is that we get another example of indignant, frothing petulance from DAR that illustrates once more the vast gulf between observable reality and the contorted picture he sees on the inside of his eyelids. Priceless.
Alan - you are right. If observable reality means that the oasis of clear thinking and reason is aided by the statements from Brad Pitt above, then yes I am far removed from 'that' reality.

53. Steve Zara - what is your point? I stated precisely that I mourned the death of Johnny Cash not because he was a 'star' but because he was a Christian brother. The fact that Cash was a Christian no more endorses the Christian case than Brad Pitt being an 80% agnostic endorses atheism. And Adrian (58) why are these statements 'lying for Jesus'?

54. AtheistJon - sorry to prick your bubble but Obama has come out as a Christian - if you are into celebrity endorsement.

60.
The difference is that belief in some sort of god is the expected default position for an uneducated or stupid person like Cliff Richard
Is this the same Richard Dawkins who complained about being 'mean spirited' in an earlier post? You do realise that for you to post this kind of 'bitchy' comment on your own website only adds further evidence for those who think that your campaign against religion has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with emotion and hatred? . Do you know Cliff Richard? Have you ever met him? Given that you have given your seal of approval to Brad Pitt would you like to share just how educated and qualified he is - compared with Cliff Richard.

73. Cliff - love it.....Thanks...

It looks as though you are losing the intellectual battle so now you have come on to the battle of the celebs. When the oasis of clear thinking is reduced to claiming Brad Pitt as a trophy and RD himself is reduced to name calling Cliff Richard as ignorant and uneducated, then you have reached a new low.

Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:59:00 UTC | #382411

Go to: Brad Pitt: 'I'm probably 20 percent atheist and 80 percent agnostic'

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by David A Robertson

Who cares? What a pointless and stupid article....why does the opinion of those who consider themselves 'celebs' matter? Christians do this kind of thing too - citing a celeb who is a Christian as though this somehow gives some extra weight to their claims. Is this what we are reduced to? RD net claiming Brad Pitt as a half baked atheist. I repeat...who cares? Surely not anyone with a functional brain?

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:48:00 UTC | #382210

Go to: [UPDATED] There'll be no tent for God at Camp Dawkins

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 218 by David A Robertson

eppesit - I think you will find that there is a difference between children and adults. Why does teaching a course at Cambridge Uni on apologetics constitute lying and hypocrisy? Can I suggest that you take a course in the English language to find out the meaning of these words and that you get some kind of cure for the post modern meaningless use of language that you seem to have picked up?

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:18:00 UTC | #375266

Go to: Unbelievable? PZ Myers and Denis Alexander on Faith and Science

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by David A Robertson

"PZ shouldn't do this kind of interview: a respected scientist's involvement makes the discussion itself appear respectable."

Have you ever heard of anything more close minded? Don't discuss with people because it gives them respectability! The only respectable position is the atheist one. And you wonder why people use the term 'atheist fundamentalist'?

PZ shouldn't do this kind of interview because he took a hammering. He was unable to answer the basic question and was clearly struggling to move beyond his Dawkins paradigm 'evolution is true therefore there is no God'.

I am currently in Brighton where we had a great discussion last night with some intelligent atheists who were at least prepared to think about and discuss some of the issues involved. Using the ' we should not discuss because it only gives respectability is as pathetic as the great man who was asked at the American Atheists conference "" You have done debates all over the world. Have you ever had a clever or interesting argument from the other side". The answer, which was greeted with laughter and applause as though it were the witticism of the century rather than the arrogant fundamentalistic statement it was, was 'no'. Is it any wonder that you are losing the intellectual arguments? And it is no surprise that you do not want to debate when you seem to be losing almost every debate. Perhaps you should just retreat to your atheist blog comfort zone and continue to tell yourselves that the only respectable intelligent position is your own.

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:14:00 UTC | #375264

Go to: [UPDATED] There'll be no tent for God at Camp Dawkins

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by David A Robertson

Truly magnificent! According to the BBC this morning they will sit round the camp fire singing 'Imagine'. A bunch of middle class kids singing fantasy such as, 'Imagine no possessions'....Wonderful, wonderful - beyond satire.

If this is not indoctrination what is it? I assume that no-one will be there to put an opposite point of view and since all the children will be coming from atheist homes and will have already been well indoctrinated by their parents, it is hardly going to be an oasis of reasoned and clear thinking. Just more 'why we are right and all religious people are liars/lunatics'.

Poor atheist parents - your children can't think straight - so you have to send them to atheist boot camps to get sorted out and further inoculated, just in case they get infected with the religious virus. And £500 a pop.....how about giving it to help those who really have no possessions - instead of just imagining them?!

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:02:00 UTC | #374456

Go to: Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford University Museum

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 585 by David A Robertson

Irate - happy to answer. When I can be sure that my time will not be wasted by the cowards who hit the troll button. Its a shame because I thought Jamcam, Scottish, Hungarian and Steve had good points to answer and I was looking forward to doing so. Until the system is changed it will be impossible to do so and until the system is changed the self -styled 'clear thinking oasis' will be nothing but a joke...

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:06:00 UTC | #369989

Go to: Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford University Museum

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 562 by David A Robertson

For those of you who are wondering what I am talking about...here is the latest post that was banned (removing it of course ruins much of the rest of the thread which was supposed to be answering it) - note also that Rafa was banned for daring to question Dawkins as well.



13. Comment #387061 by David A Robertson on June 12, 2009 at 12:05 am
464 - Scottishgeologist - yes he claims to be gay. He claims a lot of things. He was disciplined for other reasons.

And you are deliberately confusing issues. There has never been any controversy in the Free Church about whether adultery is wrong etc. Which is not to say that there has never been wrongdoing. The Prof Macleod issue was not a gender/sexuality issue. No-one was arguing that it was ok to ignore the Bibles teaching.

467. Hungarian - How do you tell a clear scriptural pattern? Read it. Read it in context. Read it understanding the nature of progressive revelation and the fact that the Bible is not a moral code book. As regards the abolition of slavery I think it is of course wonderful and am thankful that the Christian faith was a 'slave' religion and that we managed to turn the world upside down and overthrow slavery. The Bible gives clear teaching about humanity which indicates that all human beings, men and women, are equally created in the image of God. Unlike Darwin we do not speak about the superiority of particular races.

470. Philip1978 - "Considering the content of the Bible and what is in it you should be teaching the same as dear old Fred if you expect to uphold the standards that lie within that dangerous book. "

No. I am afraid that you are arguing about what you do not know. When you think that you and Fred Phelps have a better understanding of the Bible than those of us who actually believe and study it, then you are only displaying the most profound ignorance and prejudice.

471. Phatbat - "And you are unable to answer it but you do have the time to write 791 words picking out loads of throw away comments and just answering them. It's this kind of thing that makes people troll you."

Perhaps instead of counting words you should actually read them. Hungarian asked a question. I answered it. I was given four choices. I choose one. Just quite how that makes me someone who is unable to answer is beyond me. And you are right - it is this kind of inability to read, prejudice and ignorance which does make people troll me. You have no interest in truth - you just want to sit in your wee huddle and reassure one another how wonderful and right you all are - and how evil anyone is who disagrees with you. Which is why - with the honourable exception of Hungarian (who actually reads my posts and makes intelligent responses) there are even people who are prepared to post how wonderful you are when you make such a nonsensical post. (Rodger calls it reason and eppeist even suggests I ought to read it carefully - Pythonesque!)


472. Alan - I agree that Jesus did implicitly condemn paedophilia when he spoke about not harming children. He also implicitly condemned homosexualtiy when he spoke about marriage.

479 - Styrer - congratulations. A post without swearing - are you losing your touch?! Anyway I'm sorry - there is nothing that I can do to make you believe - that is God's job. I can suggest that you open your mind to the possibility and begin looking.

484 - Scottish- this is not up to your usual standard. I suggest that it is society that is obsessed with this issue not the church. You counter by directing us to a number of press cuttings about homosexuality and the church. I assume you are aware that these are all from secular newspapers. Which kind of proves my point.

489 - Hungarian - as you correctly point out it is virtually impossible for me to have a reasoned discussion on this subject here. Firstly because of the censorship system (why should I spend hours writing out posts which can just be removed) and secondly because of the name calling and irrationality of the emotional atheists here. I have posted some things on our website - www.stpeters-dundee.org.uk and I am also currently in the process of researching some of the most current scientific research on the subject - hence my earlier mention of of "Scientific American Mind' and the latest findings there (amongst which is that it is possible for people to change their sexuality). One interesting aspect is that very few people now argue for a gay 'gene'. Another interesting one is that paedophilia is also considered a sexual orientation which backs up my view that 'orientation' in and of itself is not the be all and end all. (And please note I am not equating or stating that homosexuality and paedophilia are the same - I am simply stating that, like hetrosexuality - they are sexual orientations).

500. JAMCAM - you seriously think that the liberal minister are keeping the church alive? They are emptying it. Where the church is growing is with conservative evangelicals who actually believe what they are supposed to be teaching. Have a look at this....

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=106548674125&h=r4hBT&u=jw0Gn&ref=mf

And at another level http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y (when I posted this before it was banned so perhaps I need to warn you that you might find it upsetting..)

I don't think you guys quite grasp how outdated your atheist fundamentalism is. You are losing both the intellectual and the cultural war. By concentrating on the elites, by being so arrogant and snobby, you have missed what is going on under your noses - tens of thousands of people are coming into the church. I have never known such a period of growth in the church in Britain. And much of that is thanks to RD. There are so many people who used to be apathetic (and that is the one thing the church cannot handle) and who thought that the church was dead. But when you started to attack us, people began to think that there was something to attack and wanted to find out. You have opened lots of doors for us - and your refusal/inability to actually debate or discuss things (prefering instead to mock, write to yourselves and in your sheer arrogance, assume that you are the only people with the truth). Guys its not working. What are you going to do now? Set up the gulags or actually talk to us?


And yes - as a Christian minister who is employed to teach the Bible (and even more shockingly actually believes it) I will carry on doing so. Why should I conform to your absolutist standards? Who gave you the right to determine morality, or what kinds of sexual orientation are right or wrong? If I am given the choice between obeying the moral codes of a bunch of illiberal facists who tell me that if I do not accept what they teach then I will be banned, prosecuted, called names etc or the teaching of the Creator - then it is the latter everytime.

Anyway I have to go as I am heading to London - where tomorrow I will be debating Peter Cave of the British Humanist Association (he has written three excellent books). If you are interested there will be a debate between myself and another atheist on the question of morality at 2:30 tomorrow - www.premier.org.uk

I will have a look back on Monday.....hope you all have a great weekend and that you come to know the truth....

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:33:00 UTC | #369958

Go to: Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford University Museum

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 560 by David A Robertson

Jamcam, Scottish et al -especially Hungarian. I am sorry but I am not allowed to answer your questions. I stated before that I was reluctant to spend time writing up answers which would just be sin binned/banned. You told me not to be stupid. Sadly again that has happened. Once again this shows the inability of atheist fundamentalists (and yes - this type of action and censorship only goes to prove how much you deserve that title) to engage in any kind of constructive criticism or to accept any questioning of your faith. I know that there are many of you who do not like this policy - but it is the policy of RD net and therefore the policy of Richard Dawkins. His inability to debate and to do anything other than self promotion and mockery is the reason why this policy of censorship is in place.

I guess you will have to be left to your self-congratulation and worship of your own prophet. Welcome to the Brave New World of RD net - where everything is tolerated - except dissent.

To those of you who pressed the Troll button (and who doubtless will again) - well done. You have shown yourselves (and your Master) to be the spineless cowards that you are. Your inability to think and reason is only matched by your cowardice. I hope you are ashamed of yourselves - or are you so full of self conceit that shame has no part in your vocabulary?

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:31:00 UTC | #369956

Go to: Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford University Museum

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 514 by David A Robertson

464 - Scottishgeologist - yes he claims to be gay. He claims a lot of things. He was disciplined for other reasons.

And you are deliberately confusing issues. There has never been any controversy in the Free Church about whether adultery is wrong etc. Which is not to say that there has never been wrongdoing. The Prof Macleod issue was not a gender/sexuality issue. No-one was arguing that it was ok to ignore the Bibles teaching.

467. Hungarian - How do you tell a clear scriptural pattern? Read it. Read it in context. Read it understanding the nature of progressive revelation and the fact that the Bible is not a moral code book. As regards the abolition of slavery I think it is of course wonderful and am thankful that the Christian faith was a 'slave' religion and that we managed to turn the world upside down and overthrow slavery. The Bible gives clear teaching about humanity which indicates that all human beings, men and women, are equally created in the image of God. Unlike Darwin we do not speak about the superiority of particular races.

470. Philip1978 - "Considering the content of the Bible and what is in it you should be teaching the same as dear old Fred if you expect to uphold the standards that lie within that dangerous book. "

No. I am afraid that you are arguing about what you do not know. When you think that you and Fred Phelps have a better understanding of the Bible than those of us who actually believe and study it, then you are only displaying the most profound ignorance and prejudice.

471. Phatbat - "And you are unable to answer it but you do have the time to write 791 words picking out loads of throw away comments and just answering them. It's this kind of thing that makes people troll you."

Perhaps instead of counting words you should actually read them. Hungarian asked a question. I answered it. I was given four choices. I choose one. Just quite how that makes me someone who is unable to answer is beyond me. And you are right - it is this kind of inability to read, prejudice and ignorance which does make people troll me. You have no interest in truth - you just want to sit in your wee huddle and reassure one another how wonderful and right you all are - and how evil anyone is who disagrees with you. Which is why - with the honourable exception of Hungarian (who actually reads my posts and makes intelligent responses) there are even people who are prepared to post how wonderful you are when you make such a nonsensical post. (Rodger calls it reason and eppeist even suggests I ought to read it carefully - Pythonesque!)


472. Alan - I agree that Jesus did implicitly condemn paedophilia when he spoke about not harming children. He also implicitly condemned homosexualtiy when he spoke about marriage.

479 - Styrer - congratulations. A post without swearing - are you losing your touch?! Anyway I'm sorry - there is nothing that I can do to make you believe - that is God's job. I can suggest that you open your mind to the possibility and begin looking.

484 - Scottish- this is not up to your usual standard. I suggest that it is society that is obsessed with this issue not the church. You counter by directing us to a number of press cuttings about homosexuality and the church. I assume you are aware that these are all from secular newspapers. Which kind of proves my point.

489 - Hungarian - as you correctly point out it is virtually impossible for me to have a reasoned discussion on this subject here. Firstly because of the censorship system (why should I spend hours writing out posts which can just be removed) and secondly because of the name calling and irrationality of the emotional atheists here. I have posted some things on our website - www.stpeters-dundee.org.uk and I am also currently in the process of researching some of the most current scientific research on the subject - hence my earlier mention of of "Scientific American Mind' and the latest findings there (amongst which is that it is possible for people to change their sexuality). One interesting aspect is that very few people now argue for a gay 'gene'. Another interesting one is that paedophilia is also considered a sexual orientation which backs up my view that 'orientation' in and of itself is not the be all and end all. (And please note I am not equating or stating that homosexuality and paedophilia are the same - I am simply stating that, like hetrosexuality - they are sexual orientations).

500. JAMCAM - you seriously think that the liberal minister are keeping the church alive? They are emptying it. Where the church is growing is with conservative evangelicals who actually believe what they are supposed to be teaching. Have a look at this....

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=106548674125&h=r4hBT&u=jw0Gn&ref=mf

And at another level http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y (when I posted this before it was banned so perhaps I need to warn you that you might find it upsetting..)

I don't think you guys quite grasp how outdated your atheist fundamentalism is. You are losing both the intellectual and the cultural war. By concentrating on the elites, by being so arrogant and snobby, you have missed what is going on under your noses - tens of thousands of people are coming into the church. I have never known such a period of growth in the church in Britain. And much of that is thanks to RD. There are so many people who used to be apathetic (and that is the one thing the church cannot handle) and who thought that the church was dead. But when you started to attack us, people began to think that there was something to attack and wanted to find out. You have opened lots of doors for us - and your refusal/inability to actually debate or discuss things (prefering instead to mock, write to yourselves and in your sheer arrogance, assume that you are the only people with the truth). Guys its not working. What are you going to do now? Set up the gulags or actually talk to us?


And yes - as a Christian minister who is employed to teach the Bible (and even more shockingly actually believes it) I will carry on doing so. Why should I conform to your absolutist standards? Who gave you the right to determine morality, or what kinds of sexual orientation are right or wrong? If I am given the choice between obeying the moral codes of a bunch of illiberal facists who tell me that if I do not accept what they teach then I will be banned, prosecuted, called names etc or the teaching of the Creator - then it is the latter everytime.

Anyway I have to go as I am heading to London - where tomorrow I will be debating Peter Cave of the British Humanist Association (he has written three excellent books). If you are interested there will be a debate between myself and another atheist on the question of morality at 2:30 tomorrow - www.premier.org.uk

I will have a look back on Monday.....hope you all have a great weekend and that you come to know the truth....

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:05:00 UTC | #369851

Go to: Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford University Museum

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 473 by David A Robertson

Yep - irate - up to your usual standard. Well done...

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:04:00 UTC | #369550

Go to: Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford University Museum

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 471 by David A Robertson

491 - Rodger - not quite sure what your post has to do with anything....the Monty Python link is a mickey take of the trendy middle class lef twing dominance of the early 1970's - don't take it too seriously!

413 - Nope I do not confuse promiscuity with orientation. What if my orientation is to be promiscous? Who are you to repress me with your Western middle class bourgeois morality?

417 - Mark - missed the point again. Have another go.

419 - Clodhopper - another classy comment - full of the wit, compassion and intelligence this 'oasis of clear thinking' is noted for.

421 - Tyler - yet another fundie demanding a cut and paste textual proofing. You will find that Christ does not denounce a lot of things - including mass murder, paedophilia and listening to the BeeGees - none of which makes them right.

423 - Hungarian - Thank you so much for your reasoned and sane comment. It deserves a far deeper response than I can give here. The main reason being that I am not prepared to waste a lot of time writing extensive answers which are likely to be banned (see my final comment below). My answer to your question is (d). My objection to homophobia is clearly stated on our website (cited above). My latest reading on the subject is Thomas Schmidts 'Glad to be Gay' and also the latest edition of Scientific American Mind - which comes to the conclusion that sexual orientation exists on a continuum, with genes and environment determining where people end up.

425 - JAMCAM - I'm afraid by your definition I am a homophobe. But your definition is so watertight that anyone who dares to question you is automatically labelled a homophobe. By the real definition I am not a homophobe. I think being afraid of homosexuals or discriminating against someone because of their orientation is just stupid.

426 - Shuggy - your comment is just ignorant. If you are unable to make any intelligent contribution please don't bother to display your prejudice and ignorance here.

438 - Phatbat - "Please don't try and be fair to David, i don't think it can ever work." Yep. Fairness and justice are just not part of your morality.

442 - Philip1978 - I assume this is what passes for atheist humour? Or if you are seriously suggesting that Fred Phelps is anything other than an insane manipulative evil charlatan then I cannot respond to such ignorance.

447 - Scottishgeologist - Once again you prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and you also show your complete contempt for human feeling. I know the situation you describe very well and I have no intention of going into personal details - as they are way too painful for the people involved. Suffice it to say that no member of the Glasgow presbytery is gay - that the person you are talking about was disciplined for another matter and is no longer a member of that presbytery. You can talk about having fun - some of us have to deal with real people.

454 - Rodger - we are not obsessed. It is our culture that is obsessed with sex and sexuality. Take for example this thread. I wanted to talk about the Lennox/Dawkins debate. But apparently you could not handle that so it got trolled and you started talking about homosexuality. The irony is that I almost never bring up the subject - you do - and then you have the nerve to claim we are obsessed about it!

455. Rodger - Another ad hom.....

456 - Scottishgeologist - again completely untrue. In 23 years as a Free Church minister I have never really known any strife on this subject.


Now perhaps someone can explain why the following comment was banned? What do you feel about belonging to a site where dissent and questioning is in effect banned?

"I thought Sweden was meant to be the godless atheistic paradise. So why do you need an atheist bus campaign there? Not so sure? And 2 million Swedes claim to be religious - and many Swedes still support the State church - and evangelical churches are growing - I guess things are not what they seem in paradise after all. I have preached in Sweden and I would suggest that there is as much interest in Christianity there as in the UK. It is after all a nation founded on Christian principles. Anyway thanks to the Swedish humanist association for providing the free publicity and for demonstrating that Christianity is still alive and well in Sweden."

Are you so weak that you need to be protected from this kind of argument?

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:55:00 UTC | #369546

Go to: God is not probable in Sweden (Gud finns nog inte)

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 78 by David A Robertson

"Stop whining about being trolled and get on with it. People have told you already.

The clue is - [troll] [spam] [offensive]

Think about it. "

Thanks Clodhopper - now tell me what precisely is 'offensive about the following trolled post. Think about it....

" I thought Sweden was meant to be the godless atheistic paradise. So why do you need an atheist bus campaign there? Not so sure? And 2 million Swedes claim to be religious - and many Swedes still support the State church - and evangelical churches are growing - I guess things are not what they seem in paradise after all. I have preached in Sweden and I would suggest that there is as much interest in Christianity there as in the UK. It is after all a nation founded on Christian principles.

Anyway thanks to the Swedish humanist association for providing the free publicity and for demonstrating that Christianity is still alive and well in Sweden. "

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:42:00 UTC | #369542

Go to: They aren't honest enough to write this

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by David A Robertson

Tyler,

You wrote 'its like talking to a five year old child'. Indeed it is. Can you explain for example why the following post on the Sweden thread was banned? You seriously expect me to wast time putting up answers, which if they are the wrong ones (ie. five atheists disagree with) automatically get removed - leaving only a series of insults and attacks upon a post that is then missing? There is something seriously wrong with this site - that it is so intolerant and afraid that you cannot handle a post like the following. Perhaps when you grow up and can cope with an adult debate, I will be allowed to answer.

"I thought Sweden was meant to be the godless atheistic paradise. So why do you need an atheist bus campaign there? Not so sure? And 2 million Swedes claim to be religious - and many Swedes still support the State church - and evangelical churches are growing - I guess things are not what they seem in paradise after all. I have preached in Sweden and I would suggest that there is as much interest in Christianity there as in the UK. It is after all a nation founded on Christian principles.

Anyway thanks to the Swedish humanist association for providing the free publicity and for demonstrating that Christianity is still alive and well in Sweden. "

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:15:00 UTC | #369528

Go to: God is not probable in Sweden (Gud finns nog inte)

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by David A Robertson

Could anyone please tell me why the following comment was 'trolled'? This site is pathetic in its intolerance and inability to handle or allow any kind of dissent. Isn't it about time you grew up?

" I thought Sweden was meant to be the godless atheistic paradise. So why do you need an atheist bus campaign there? Not so sure? And 2 million Swedes claim to be religious - and many Swedes still support the State church - and evangelical churches are growing - I guess things are not what they seem in paradise after all. I have preached in Sweden and I would suggest that there is as much interest in Christianity there as in the UK. It is after all a nation founded on Christian principles.

Anyway thanks to the Swedish humanist association for providing the free publicity and for demonstrating that Christianity is still alive and well in Sweden. "

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:11:00 UTC | #369527

Go to: They aren't honest enough to write this

David A Robertson's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by David A Robertson

Hi Hugh,

Read it....several times....and your point is?

To the rest - yes I will answer the questions on the other threads - but there is only so much time in one day.. Should manage tomorrow....and I need to wait and see if they have been trolled or not. I'm not going to waste time writing answers which just get deleted...

By the way - sticking to the subject - Steve Zaras post here makes a lot of sense..

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:13:00 UTC | #369369