Books

This novel is hilarious (unless you're Richard Dawkins)

When the Professor Got Stuck in the Snow — the novel that no one dared publish — looks set to become a comic classic

21 November 2015

9:00 AM

21 November 2015

9:00 AM

When the Professor Got Stuck in the Snow Dan Rhodes

Aardvark Bureau, pp.208, £8.99, ISBN: 9781910709016

Dan Rhodes apparently had trouble finding a publisher for this short novel, and it’s possible to envisage a certain amount of sorrowful head-shaking in legal departments at its theme. In the dead of winter, accompanied by his long-suffering ‘male secretary’ Smee, a ‘thrice-married evolutionary biologist’ named Richard Dawkins gets stranded in rural England while en route to address the All Bottoms Women’s Institute on the topic of the non-existence of God. This elderly, irascible scientist is taken in by the local vicar and his wife, and forced to contend with various local problems, from religious disputes — ‘Your silly books are just collections of fairy stories; you might as well revolve your lives around the teachings of the Three Billy Goats Gruff’ — to the switching-on of the village’s Christmas lights, an event which he chooses to preface with ‘a five-minute distillation of his views on the subject of infanticide’.

Rhodes’s book is satire of the broadest stripe: it is, in fact, the closest thing to a strip from Viz magazine that I’ve seen in novel form. The tone swerves hilariously between puerile double-entendre (there’s a running sequence of gags about ‘seeing Upper Bottom’) and lacerating comedy about the atheist movement and its acolytes. The professor indicates with pride that if you are looking for an expert to teach you all about how the gaps in the fossil record in no way challenge the theory of evolution, you could do worse than call on an alternative comedian and, upon seeing a car with ONE LIFE — LIVE IT written on the side, he observes that he’d like to borrow the slogan as a title for his next book, ‘though I dare say Grayling would come out with a volume of his own six months later, called Live Your One Life or some such.’


It’s very funny, but it isn’t bulletproof. The comic motors are the logic and detachment upon which the real Dawkins prides himself: Rhodes’s professor is incapable of seeing category distinctions between expressions of religious thought, so he meets the hazy belief in God of simple country folk with the same fury — ‘You might as well say there is a goblin with a purple face!’ — that he reserves for religious extremism. Because this invariance is the point, the comedy requires a setting upon which fundamentalism, radicalism and zealotry never intrude; and that, of course, is not always the backdrop against which Rhodes’s real-life target operates.

Instead, this is mickey-taking as British as pantomime, pitting its derisive professor against a bunch of amiable, Postman-Pattish Christians (vicars, soldiers, members of the WI, a little girl with a sick cat) in a way that makes huge comic capital from the English social horror of intemperance and extreme opinion.

Non-Brits are likely to find it more confusing, as may anyone who hasn’t followed the real Professor Dawkins’s second career as provocateur, self-appointed enemy of ‘illogic, obscurantism, pretension’ and online troll. And despite a cunning flick of the cape that seems to put the author out of reach of legal action, there is at least one thrice-married evolutionary biologist whom it will certainly not amuse. I, however, laughed myself sick.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Available from the Spectator Bookshop, £8.54, Tel: 08430 600033

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • rationalobservations?

    This novel is hilarious (but only if you’re a moronic religiot).

    • woozlecat

      You have read it? Or is it just a case of non-divine revelation?

  • KiwiNZ1

    You are missing an “s” at the end of this sentence. “…the real Professor Dawkins’s second career as provocateur,
    self-appointed enemy of ‘illogic, obscurantism, pretension’ and online
    troll.”
    Dawkins is not a troll. Trolls are generally anonymous and do not mean what they say, let alone are able to back it up. And as for “illogic” etc wouldn’t any academic want to be known as this ?
    This review is weak sauce, and fails to point out that the main character _did_ save the life of the kittens (and their mother) as any Oxford Zoologist would hopefully have done, with no more than his highly trained fingers.

  • KiwiNZ1

    Oh and I’ve just noticed the url for this page is “the-atheist-delusion”. What is that all about Spectator ? Atheism makes no claims about gods. So cannot be a delusion.

    Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. I suppose you could argue that given the overwhelming evidence that gods exist, it is deluded to reject such claims, (that’s satire BTW) but so far such positions are restricted to “theology” faculties and indoctrinated children, who, sadly grow up to be indoctrinated adults. With sometimes alarming consequences.

    Perhaps a companion volume could be entitled “The Professor who got stuck with trying to save the world from theistic nonsense”.

    • alfredo

      You seem to be pretending to be a character out of this very novel.

      • KiwiNZ1

        I could be the helicopter pilot I suppose.

    • sidor

      “Atheism makes no claims about gods.”

      “Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims.”

      Don’t you see that these two statements are mutually inconsistent?

      • David S

        They are not. Theistic claims are assertion without evidence, and should be rejected on that basis alone. I have no idea whether any supreme intelligence/being/whatever exists (although for me the existence of such a being would only move the question of how life started back a notch); however mankind has come up with hundreds if not thousands of gods over the millennia, and I see no reason to give any one of them any more credence than the others.

        • sidor

          I am afraid you didn’t get it. Let me explain. Read slowly. The following points are self-evident:

          1. If “theistic” claims have anything to do with (whatever) god, the two statements above are mutually exclusive because atheism rejecting whatever claim about “god” thereby discusses the latter.

          2. If “theistic” claims say nothing about any kind of “god”, the difference between theism and atheism is only in literary style.

          Which one of the two do you believe?

      • KiwiNZ1

        You are mistaking claims about the absence of beliefs in the mind of the
        person responding to the question and the question. I’ll put it in
        another situation that will make it easier to understand.

        I have a jar of marbles. Can we agree that there is either an even or an
        odd number ? (Analogous to there being either gods or no gods.)

        You claim there is an odd number. (There is at least one god).

        I reject that claim because my mind is unconvinced without enough evidence to support the claim (the marbles are uncounted).

        So I do not hold a belief other than the one that forms part of the
        original question. The concept of “oddness and “evennness” exists, just
        as the concept of gods does (although be careful when you define the
        properties of the god you are asserting about, the Sun is a god with
        certain properties you know.

        This is not a claim about the marbles, it is a rejection of your claim
        about them. And of course is it too obvious to note that in rejecting the claim that there is not an odd number I do NOT claim there must be an even number ?

        So state of atheism just means a mind that rejects the claim that one or
        more gods exists. There are no positive claims about gods. Only the
        results of polling the mind involved. OK ?

        It’s just a fact that some people need evidence to believe something and
        others don’t. They just need an authority figure, like a priest or
        parent telling them to believe it.

        • sidor

          I am afraid you didn’t get it again. In order to discuss the number of items in your/mine possession, the item in question has to be operationally defined, in terms of measurable characteristics. You cannot claim that something doesn’t exist before you explain what you are talking about. However, as soon as you start defining (whatever) god, in order to prove its non-existence, you contradict your above statement “Atheism makes no claims about gods.”

          The conclusion is clear, and quite sad for you: atheism, in its currently popular form, is just a peculiar form of primitive paganism. That is, they first assume some idiotic superstition and then bravely destroy it using another idiotic superstition. That is precisely what Dawkins is doing in his graphomania.

        • Woman In White

          You are mistaking claims about the absence of beliefs in the mind of theperson responding to the question

          You confuse agnosticism and atheism.

          Absence of beliefs is called agnosticism. Belief in the non-existence of the Divine is called atheism.

          I have a jar of marbles. Can we agree that there is either an even or an odd number ?

          Schrödinger’s Marble is simultaneously odd and even.

          Besides, how do I know that your jar does not contain ar least one fragmentary marble ? Or some non-marble(s) ? Or no marbles at all (zero is neither odd nor even) ?

          So — no. We can’t.

          So state of atheism just means a mind that rejects the claim that one or more gods exists. There are no positive claims about gods.

          Rejection of the existence of something is a positive statement about it.

          The statement “Mickey Mouse does not exist” is a positive statement regarding the lack of reality of that fictional character.

          It is as naïve to pretend otherwise, including to oneself.

  • 1DavidMilne1

    It’s great to see the Spectator relying on an atheist professor for it’s book sales..!

  • rationalobservations?

    Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science degree by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo, and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia. He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (Hon LittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.

    In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year for his work on the BBC’s Horizon episode The Blind Watchmaker.

    His other awards include the Zoological Society of London’s Silver Medal (1989), the Finlay Innovation Award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association’s Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the 2001 and 2012 Emperor Has No Clothes Award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002), and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).

    Dawkins topped Prospect magazine’s 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. He was short-listed as a candidate in their 2008 follow-up poll. In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his “concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge”. He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006, as well as the Galaxy British Book Awards’s Author of the Year Award for 2007. In the same year, he was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, and he was ranked 20th in The Daily Telegraph’s 2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses. He was awarded the Deschner Award, named after German anti-clerical author Karlheinz Deschner.

    Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during its annual conference, honouring an outstanding atheist whose work has done the most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year; it is known as the Richard Dawkins Award, in honour of Dawkins’s own efforts.

    In February 2010, Dawkins was named to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Honorary Board of distinguished achievers.

    In 2012, ichthyologists in Sri Lanka honored Dawkins by creating Dawkinsia as a new genus name (members of this genus were formerly members of the genus Puntius). Explaining the reasoning behind the genus name, lead researcher Rohan Pethiyagoda was quoted as stating that “Richard Dawkins has, through his writings, helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined. We hope that Dawkinsia will serve as a reminder of the elegance and simplicity of evolution, the only rational explanation there is for the unimaginable diversity of life on Earth.”

    In a poll held by Prospect magazine in 2013, Dawkins was voted the world’s top thinker based on 65 names chosen by a largely US- and UK-based expert panel.

    It’s perhaps little wonder that people who are humiliated to have their bunkum debunked by “the world’s top thinker” resort to the failed attempt at ad hominem.

    • Needs2Cash

      Indeed, he qualifies to be called the supreme being.

      • rationalobservations?

        Dawkins is just an often fallible member of our very recently evolved species of ape…, like all the rest of us.
        Brilliant and much admired in his own discipline of science but often frustratingly ignorant in some other disciplines.

        • lookout

          Speaking of apes, are not their hips the wrong way round?

          • rationalobservations?

            Nope. Same way round as the homo-sapiens sapiens species of ape with whom they share the vast majority of their genome.

        • sidor

          What are the scientific results which Prof. Dawkins is admired for, besides his demonstrating the recent evolution of apes that you have mentioned?

          • rationalobservations?

            Already listed in previous answers to you.

            No need for thanks and always happy to teach and inform.

          • sidor

            Scientific results are reported in scientific journals. Any references to the reports of the Dawkins discoveries?

        • Woman In White

          My understanding from reports of the academic gossip is that virtually all of his specifically genetic theories have been abandoned by his peers, and that the current research is built on completely different theories.

          As to the truth of that, I can’t say — but his theory of “memetics” is most certainly complete nonsense, based on some hand-waving imprecisions and various claims about the nature of the mind and consciousness that directly contradict the body of evidence.

          • rationalobservations?

            Yes., but what evidence can you present in favour of creation and against the science of evolution?

            Ad hominem against Dawkins is not relevant.

          • Woman In White

            I see that you do not understand the ad hominem figure.

            To disagree with a man’s ideas is NOT ad hominem.

            Your own nonsense claims that this or that person should be ignored because of character defects IS ad hominem.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Academic gossip is not trustworthy, in that case. RD is prof of public understanding of science, and no longer carries out any research into models of animal behaviour and decision making, the subject of his doctorate. That work, however, does not like outside the mainstream of ethology. The memes idea comes ultimately from Bergson, and is compelling or appalling depending on your standpoint, but he has abandoned the ‘strong’ version of it found in The Selfish Gene. Most of the coffee-table evodevo biologists – including some I like and others I don’t – left off lab work years ago, and don’t publish their think-pieces or review articles in scientific journals. I don’t find this impermissible – scientists ought to write for a wider audience, and are entitled to synthesise other people’s work into their own worldview – as long as their fan-clubs don’t greet all of their writing as incontrovertible evidence.

          • Woman In White

            Academic gossip is not trustworthy, in that case

            Precisely why I wrote my caveat : “As to the truth of that, I can’t say” ; and why I characterised it as “gossip” in the first place.

            Memetic theory contradicts the more recent findings of neurolinguistic science, and in my view it also contradicts the fundamentals of Grammar Theory, Rhetorics, IMO Linguistics, certainly Semiotics, and the cognitive and various relevant scientific specialties of neuro- psycho- and socio- linguistics.

            Memetics have been generally disproven by comparative studies of those raised together, separately, and in isolation — the only cases where identical twins raised together in exactly identical conditions, siamese twins most notably, cannot be distinguished in thought and knowledge and opinion involve clinical psychoses.

            Ultimately, memetics are based on nothing more reliable than outdated 19th century clockwork universe theory and the sort of outdated Marxist collectivist philosophies that were popular in Dawkins’ student days.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            More fundamentally, memes contradict biology (how would you quantify cultural variance across populations?), but I don’t think RD meant it as more than a suggestive metaphor – it’s not intended to be the basis of a research programme, and he doesn’t publish papers on it. The idea that culture is biological is not itself distinctively marxist; writers on the related idea of evolutionary psych are often explicitly hostile to the idea that humans can step into their own history and change it.

          • Woman In White

            More fundamentally, memes contradict biology

            Right, but that’s not my field, so I’d refrain from suggesting that myself.

            Thank you for having done so.

            The idea that culture is biological is not itself distinctively marxist; writers on the related idea of evolutionary psych are often explicitly hostile to the idea that humans can step into their own history and change it.

            I see your point, except that Marxism does depict its utopian ideology as being an inevitable outcome of human development.

            Our differing points of view of why memetics is wrong don’t really contradict each other, as far as I can tell.

    • woozlecat

      Are you his agent? Or just a fanboy?

      • bombaybadboy

        Inferring from the locked comments, I doubt it’s his agent.
        And “fanboy”, yes, if a fanboy is someone who likes to refer to themselves in the third person in print when writing their own hagiography.

      • rationalobservations?

        Neither.

      • rose white

        he is a Dawkins groupie.

        • Sanctimony

          Much as you and Woman in White are Feydeau groupies ….

          • Woman In White

            Hardly my period, and you simply demonstrate your own intimacy with trashy bourgeois snobisme.

        • Sanctimony

          k

      • Woman In White

        Fanboy.

        Yank the Dawkins chain hard enough, and Ratty is certain to turn up with his “evidence”-based atheist bigotry to defend the poor man.

    • sidor

      It is quite remarkable: a great scientist without producing a single scientific result, and great intellectual without demonstrating a trace of intellect. His idiotic statements could have qualify him for a great comedian.

      • Caractacus

        Have you actually read any of his science books? They happen to be very good.

        • sidor

          What science books? Did he produce any scientific result to write about? Or just wrote about what has already been reported by others?

          • rationalobservations?

            Why don’t you read them and find out for yourself?

          • sidor

            I presume you have read them. Why wouldn’t you answer the above question?

          • rationalobservations?

            You presume correctly.

            Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
            Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-288051-9.
            Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
            Dawkins, R. (1995). River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8.
            Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31682-3.
            Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-05673-4.
            Dawkins, R. (2003). A Devil’s Chaplain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-33540-4.
            Dawkins, R. (2004). The Ancestor’s Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-00583-8.
            Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
            Dawkins, R. (2007). Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0199214662.
            Various (2008). Richard Dawkins, ed. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-921680-0.
            Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
            Dawkins, R. (2011). The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. Free Press (United States), Bantam Press (United Kingdom). ISBN 1-4391-9281-2. OCLC 709673132.
            Dawkins, R. (2013). An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist. Bantam Press (United States and United Kingdom). ISBN 0593070895.
            Dawkins, R. (2015). Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science. Bantam Press (United States and United Kingdom). ISBN 0593072561.
            Dawkins, R. (December 1992). “Is god a computer virus?”. New Statesman 5 (233): 42–45.
            Dawkins, R. (June 1993). “Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee”. New Scientist 138 (1876): 36–38.
            Dawkins, R. (1993). “Viruses of the Mind” (PDF). Free Inquiry: 34–41.
            Dawkins, R. (September 1995). “The Evolved Imagination”. Natural History 104 (9): 8.
            Dawkins, R. (November 1995). “God’s Utility Function”. Scientific American 273 (5): 80–85. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1195-80.
            Dawkins, R. (10 April 1999). “Snake Oil and Holy Water”. Forbes: 235+.
            Dawkins, R. (2 October 2000). “Hall of Mirrors”. Forbes: 273.
            Dawkins, R. (January 2001). “What is science good for?”. Harvard Business Review 79 (1): 159–63, 178. PMID 11189460.
            Dawkins, R. (2004-09-11). “Gerin Oil”. Free Inquiry.
            Dawkins, R. (2005-02-19). “The Giant Tortoise’s Tale”. The Guardian (London).
            Dawkins, R. (2005-02-26). “The Turtle’s Tale”. The Guardian (London).
            Dawkins, R. (2005-05-21). “God’s Gift to Kansas”. The Times (London).
            Dawkins, R. “The Lava Lizard’s Tale”. The Guardian (London).
            Dawkins, R.; Dawkins, R; Noble, D; Yudkin, M (2007). “Genes still central”. New Scientist 196 (2634): 18–18. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(07)63136-4.
            Krauss, L.M.; Dawkins, R. (2007). “Should science speak to faith?”. Scientific American 297 (1): 88–91. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0707-88. PMID 17695847.
            Dawkins, R. (2008). “The group delusion”. New Scientist 197 (2638): 17. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60086-X.
            Dawkins, R. (2008). “The evolution of altruism – what matters is gene selection”. New Scientist 197 (2638): 17–17. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60086-X.
            Academic papers[edit]
            1960s[edit]
            Dawkins, R. (1968). “The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks”. Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–186. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1968.tb00011.x. PMID 5684149.
            Dawkins, R. (1969). “Bees Are Easily Distracted”. Science 165 (3895): 751–751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.
            1970s[edit]
            Dawkins, R. (1971). “Selective neurone death as a possible memory mechanism”. Nature 229 (5280): 118–119. doi:10.1038/229118a0.
            Dawkins, R. (1976). “Growing points in ethology”. In Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
            Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). “Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy”. Nature 262 (5564): 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.
            Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). “The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?”. Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479–484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3. PMID 1011857.
            Dawkins, R. (1976). “Universal Darwinism”. In Bendall, D.S. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–425.
            Dawkins R (1978). “Replicator selection and the extended phenotype”. Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb01823.x. PMID 696023.
            Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). “Animal signals: information or manipulation”. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282–309.
            Dawkins, R. (1979). “Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection”. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51: 184–200. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00682.x.
            Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1979). “Arms races between and within species”. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. PMID 42057.
            Brockmann, H.J.; Dawkins, R.; Grafen A. (1979). “Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life”. Behaviour (London: Academic Press) 71 (3): 203–244. doi:10.1163/156853979X00179.
            Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J.; Grafen, A. (1979). “Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp”. Journal of Theoretical Biology 77 (4): 473–496. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3. PMID 491692.
            1980s[edit]
            Dawkins, R. (1980). “Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy”. In Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331–337. ISBN 0-89158-960-0.
            Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J. (1980). “Do digger wasps commit the concorde fallacy?”. Animal Behaviour 28 (3): 892–896. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80149-7.

          • Woman In White

            See ?

            Fanboy.

          • rationalobservations?

            Yes., I see – No evidence, no logic and no argument.
            Just ad hominem as an admission of tacit defeat…

          • Woman In White

            Direct insults are not ad hominem, you idiot.

          • Mary Ann

            It’s all about informing the world about how the diversity of life on earth came about, far far better than anything in the Bible or the Koran.

          • sidor

            I am afraid you didn’t answer the question. Let me repeat: did he report a single new scientific result or a single idea of his own? Yes/no would suffice for the answer.

            In terms of literary style, I prefer the Bible.

          • rationalobservations?

            See above for a list of published papers and best selling non fiction books written by Dawkins.

            Which version of the xtian bible do you refer to?

            The very first one written by a team of anonymous Greek scribes in 4th century Rome? Or one of the succession of significantly different versions written by anonymous (and more recently known) human authors after the 4th century?

          • rose white

            LOL My you really sold your soul to Satan didn’t you!

            First Bible? What about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Romans in the years when the disciple were still alive?

          • rationalobservations?

            I am very familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

            Which one mentions “Jesus” and where is it conserved for study?

            In case you missed my response to a similarly unsupported assertion above:

            I have searched for historical evidence of “Yeshua/Jesus” far and wide across the world and researched within many of the world’s greatest libraries and museums. I have found not a single shred of original,1st century originated, extant, authentic, verified and verifiable evidence that supports any of the much, much later written confused and contradictory legends of a god-man/messiah named “Jesus”.

            Every single text that claims to be a “copy” of 1st century texts was written long after the time to which they are fraudulently “backdated” and merely attributed. There is not a shred of evidence that they are not (as they appear to be) the original fiction, not a copy of earlier fiction.

            There exists evidence of several “messiahs” recorded as existing between Circa 4 BCE and Circa 140 CE. There is no trace of any god-man/messiah named “Jesus” or any real Jewish/Hebrew name from which that otherwise meaningless Greek word may have been coined long after the time in which the legends of “Jesus” are set.

            There is no authentic and original 1st century originated evidence that the god-man (centuries later called “Jesus” by Greek scribes employed by Rome) existed at all.

            No 1st century texts.
            No 1st century artifacts.
            No 1st century archaeology.

            All we have are a diverse and different series of human authored confused and internally contradictory books that first appeared in 4th century Rome – but that have been much altered ever since until the ridiculous, confused and internally contradictory bibles we all know today were written by later teams of religiot authors.

            There isn’t even any historical or archaeological trace of a city called “Nazareth” until the modern Jesus theme-park town was founded in the very late 3rd century at the earliest.

            Your evidenceless assertions appear to be pointless and in no respect validate a single version of the legends of “Jesus” that appeared for the first time in a prototype “bible” hand written by an anonymous team of scribes in the 4th century. (See: “Codex Sinaiticus”)

            Care to make an attempt at answering these evidence based questions?

            1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated evidence of the life and times of one of many messiah claimants (only much later Greek scribes employed by the 4th century Romans) named “Jesus”?

            2) Can you name a complete bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus christian bible and matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus?

            3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

            4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian bibles today?

            5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

            6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within NT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within the Torah and other Jewish literature and tradition?

            I have asked these questions many times and within many different comment columns. I do not get annoyed when the response is mere blanket denial, dishonest straw man non-argument, ad hominem or a barrage of recycled propaganda and long debunked bunkum.

            I wonder if you will surprise me (and any readers still following this column) with something based upon a little more logic, common sense and (most of all) – authentic original, verifies and verifiable 1st century originated evidence.

          • Woman In White

            I am very familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

            Which one mentions “Jesus” and where is it conserved for study?

            They are Old Testament texts, you ignorant twerp.

          • rationalobservations?

            The “Old Testament” texts that appear for the first time in the Codex Sinaiticus that was hand written by a team of anonymous Greek scribes in 4th century Rome? That’s not evidence – it’s propaganda.

            How about some actual, original, first hand, verified and verifiable 1st century evidence from the 1st 3 decades of the 1st century?

            The question you fail to dodge remains:

            Which actual original Dead Sea scroll mentions “Jesus”?

            Your indoctrination and ignorance is spilling into this column, WiW.

          • Woman In White

            The current scientific knowledge demonstrates that the New Testament was written in the 1st Century, with the likely exception of one of the Epistles, thought to be of 2nd Century origin.

            So you’re on shaky ground, Ratty, in your pretensions concerning basis in evidence.

          • rationalobservations?

            “Shaky ground”?? Oh the irony! ROFL

            I have searched for historical evidence of “Yeshua/Jesus” far and wide across the world and researched within many of the world’s greatest libraries and museums. I have found not a single shred of original,1st century originated, extant, authentic, verified and verifiable evidence that supports any of the much, much later written confused and contradictory legends of a god-man/messiah named “Jesus”.

            Every single text that claims to be a “copy” of 1st century texts was written long after the time to which they are fraudulently “backdated” and merely attributed. There is not a shred of evidence that they are not (as they appear to be) the original fiction, not a copy of earlier fiction.

            There exists evidence of several “messiahs” recorded as existing between Circa 4 BCE and Circa 140 CE. There is no trace of any god-man/messiah named “Jesus” or any real Jewish/Hebrew name from which that otherwise meaningless Greek word may have been coined long after the time in which the legends of “Jesus” are set.

            There is no authentic and original 1st century originated evidence that the god-man (centuries later called “Jesus” by Greek scribes employed by Rome) existed at all.

            No 1st century texts.
            No 1st century artifacts.
            No 1st century archaeology.

            All we have are a diverse and different series of human authored confused and internally contradictory books that first appeared in 4th century Rome – but that have been much altered ever since until the ridiculous, confused and internally contradictory bibles we all know today were written by later teams of religiot authors.

            There isn’t even any historical or archaeological trace of a city called “Nazareth” until the modern Jesus theme-park town was founded in the very late 3rd century at the earliest.

            Your evidenceless assertions appear to be pointless and in no respect validate a single version of the legends of “Jesus” that appeared for the first time in a prototype “bible” hand written by an anonymous team of scribes in the 4th century. (See: “Codex Sinaiticus”)

            Care to make an attempt at answering these evidence based questions?

            1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated evidence of the life and times of one of many messiah claimants (only much later Greek scribes employed by the 4th century Romans) named “Jesus”?

            2) Can you name a complete bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus christian bible and matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus?

            3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

            4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian bibles today?

            5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

            6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within NT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within the Torah and other Jewish literature and tradition?

            I have asked these questions many times and within many different comment columns. I do not get annoyed when the response is mere blanket denial, dishonest straw man non-argument, ad hominem or a barrage of recycled propaganda and long debunked bunkum.

            I wonder if you will surprise me (and any readers still following this column) with something based upon a little more logic, common sense and (most of all) – authentic original, verifies and verifiable 1st century originated evidence

          • Woman In White

            Every single text that claims to be a “copy” of 1st century texts

            There is not one single original 1st Century manuscript supporting the existence of Julius Caesar.

            It’s not my fault if your ghastly methodology is utterly flawed.

            You understand not even the basics of Philology.

          • rationalobservations?

            There is much evidence of the existence, life and times of Julius Caesar.
            There is also evidence of the life and times of quite a few “messiahs” that lived between Circa 4 BCE and Circa 140 CE.
            There is not one single shred of evidence relating to the existence, life and times of a god-man/”messiah” named as “jesus” centuries after the time in which the legends of Jesus are set.

          • rose white

            LOL God said he made all sorts of creatures and scientists confirm that maybe 99times as many vareities of animals, birds etc died in The Flood 4,300 years ago as are alive today.
            Adam and Eve enjoyed petting TRexes for instance.

          • rose white

            LOL Rehashed Darwinian novellas.

            Darwin mistook observations of the marvels of God’s Creation for evolution due to his selling his soul to Satan.

      • rationalobservations?

        You really must learn to prefix your wacko diatribes with: “In my personal but ill informed opinion……”

        • sidor

          Could you give us a reference to any of his results published in a scientific journal? If you can’t, don’t hesitate to say it.

          • rationalobservations?

            Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
            Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-288051-9.
            Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
            Dawkins, R. (1995). River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8.
            Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31682-3.
            Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-05673-4.
            Dawkins, R. (2003). A Devil’s Chaplain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-33540-4.
            Dawkins, R. (2004). The Ancestor’s Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-00583-8.
            Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
            Dawkins, R. (2007). Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0199214662.
            Various (2008). Richard Dawkins, ed. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-921680-0.
            Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
            Dawkins, R. (2011). The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. Free Press (United States), Bantam Press (United Kingdom). ISBN 1-4391-9281-2. OCLC 709673132.
            Dawkins, R. (2013). An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist. Bantam Press (United States and United Kingdom). ISBN 0593070895.
            Dawkins, R. (2015). Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science. Bantam Press (United States and United Kingdom). ISBN 0593072561.
            Dawkins, R. (December 1992). “Is god a computer virus?”. New Statesman 5 (233): 42–45.
            Dawkins, R. (June 1993). “Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee”. New Scientist 138 (1876): 36–38.
            Dawkins, R. (1993). “Viruses of the Mind” (PDF). Free Inquiry: 34–41.
            Dawkins, R. (September 1995). “The Evolved Imagination”. Natural History 104 (9): 8.
            Dawkins, R. (November 1995). “God’s Utility Function”. Scientific American 273 (5): 80–85. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1195-80.
            Dawkins, R. (10 April 1999). “Snake Oil and Holy Water”. Forbes: 235+.
            Dawkins, R. (2 October 2000). “Hall of Mirrors”. Forbes: 273.
            Dawkins, R. (January 2001). “What is science good for?”. Harvard Business Review 79 (1): 159–63, 178. PMID 11189460.
            Dawkins, R. (2004-09-11). “Gerin Oil”. Free Inquiry.
            Dawkins, R. (2005-02-19). “The Giant Tortoise’s Tale”. The Guardian (London).
            Dawkins, R. (2005-02-26). “The Turtle’s Tale”. The Guardian (London).
            Dawkins, R. (2005-05-21). “God’s Gift to Kansas”. The Times (London).
            Dawkins, R. “The Lava Lizard’s Tale”. The Guardian (London).
            Dawkins, R.; Dawkins, R; Noble, D; Yudkin, M (2007). “Genes still central”. New Scientist 196 (2634): 18–18. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(07)63136-4.
            Krauss, L.M.; Dawkins, R. (2007). “Should science speak to faith?”. Scientific American 297 (1): 88–91. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0707-88. PMID 17695847.
            Dawkins, R. (2008). “The group delusion”. New Scientist 197 (2638): 17. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60086-X.
            Dawkins, R. (2008). “The evolution of altruism – what matters is gene selection”. New Scientist 197 (2638): 17–17. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60086-X.
            Academic papers[edit]
            1960s[edit]
            Dawkins, R. (1968). “The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks”. Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–186. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1968.tb00011.x. PMID 5684149.
            Dawkins, R. (1969). “Bees Are Easily Distracted”. Science 165 (3895): 751–751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.
            1970s[edit]
            Dawkins, R. (1971). “Selective neurone death as a possible memory mechanism”. Nature 229 (5280): 118–119. doi:10.1038/229118a0.
            Dawkins, R. (1976). “Growing points in ethology”. In Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
            Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). “Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy”. Nature 262 (5564): 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.
            Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). “The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?”. Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479–484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3. PMID 1011857.
            Dawkins, R. (1976). “Universal Darwinism”. In Bendall, D.S. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–425.
            Dawkins R (1978). “Replicator selection and the extended phenotype”. Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb01823.x. PMID 696023.
            Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). “Animal signals: information or manipulation”. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282–309.
            Dawkins, R. (1979). “Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection”. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51: 184–200. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00682.x.
            Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1979). “Arms races between and within species”. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. PMID 42057.
            Brockmann, H.J.; Dawkins, R.; Grafen A. (1979). “Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life”. Behaviour (London: Academic Press) 71 (3): 203–244. doi:10.1163/156853979X00179.
            Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J.; Grafen, A. (1979). “Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp”. Journal of Theoretical Biology 77 (4): 473–496. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3. PMID 491692.
            1980s[edit]
            Dawkins, R. (1980). “Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy”. In Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331–337. ISBN 0-89158-960-0.
            Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J. (1980). “Do digger wasps commit the concorde fallacy?”. Animal Behaviour 28 (3): 892–896. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80149-7.
            Dawkins, Richard (1981). “In defence of selfish genes”. Philosophy 56 (218): 556–573. doi:10.1017/S0031819100050580.
            Krebs, J.R.; Dawkins, R. (1984). “Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation”. In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N.B. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 380–402. ISBN 0-632-02702-9.
            1990s[edit]
            Dawkins, R. (1990). “Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism”. Parasitology 100: S63–73. doi:10.1017/s0031182000073029. PMID 2235064.
            Dawkins, R. (June 1991). “Evolution on the Mind”. Nature 351 (6329): 686–686. doi:10.1038/351686c0.
            Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). “Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube”. Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. doi:10.1038/357198a0. PMID 1375346.
            Dawkins, R. (1994). “Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling”. Nature 368 (6473): 690–691. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.
            Dawkins, R. (September 1995). “The Evolved Imagination”. Natural History 104 (9): 8.
            Dawkins, R. (December 1994). “Burying The Vehicle”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207.[dead link]
            Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). “Religion and Science”. BioEssays 19 (8): 743–743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.
            Dawkins, R. (1997). “The Pope’s message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue”. The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399. doi:10.1086/419951.
            Dawkins, R. (1998). “Postmodernism Disrobed”. Nature 394 (6689): 141–143. doi:10.1038/28089.
            Dawkins, R. (1998). “Arresting evidence”. Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–5. doi:10.1002/j.2326-1951.1998.tb03673.x. PMID 11657757.
            2000s[edit]
            Dawkins, R. (2000). “W. D. Hamilton memorial”. Nature 405 (6788): 733. doi:10.1038/35015793.
            Dawkins, R. (2002). “Should doctors be Darwinian?”. Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
            Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). “Is a scientific boycott ever justified?”. Nature 421 (6921): 314–314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.
            Dawkins, R. (2003). “The evolution of evolvability”. On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.
            Dawkins, R. (2004). “Viruses of the mind”. In Warburton, N. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-33798-4.
            Dawkins, R. (June 2004). “Extended phenotype – But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka”. Biology & Philosophy 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.

          • rose white

            LOL Rehashed Darwinian novellas with not a shred of evidence repackaged for the Trekkies.

        • Woman In White

          You first, Ratty.

      • rose white

        who is the great scientist? Surely you are not referring to Dawkins?

    • samton909

      And he is still just kind of an obsessive clown, able to make all sorts of basic thinking mistakes.

      If you think that honorary degrees from modern universities actually mean anything, then you are as unable to overcome your biases as Dawkins is.

      • rationalobservations?

        I am no particular fan of Dawkins. I merely present the alternative view to those who attempt ad hominem against him.

        1) Make your case for religion and present your evidence for the existence of whichever of the many thousands of “gods” and/or “god-men” you think exist.

        2) If you consider that Dawkins (and the whole of modern science and academia) is wrong about biological evolution: Present your argument in favour of whichever creation story you may believe and any argument you think you have against the science and evidence of evolution.

        • sidor

          2) Darwinism isn’t modern: it is a stupid 19th century superstition inconsistent with the fundamental principles, which biologists are unaware of due to their lack of basic education.

          • Mc

            Yes, so spot on. You, the great scientist whose discoveries have turned all known scientific knowledge on its head, by proving that that Darwinian evolution is a nonsense. There’s a Nobel waiting for you and your voices.

          • sidor

            You are too kind to humble me. Nobels are not awarded for being acquainted with physics within the limits of school textbook. Try to read it, and (hopefully) you too will get the point.

          • Mc

            I don’t believe there’s a rational train of thought within or joining any of your sentences.

          • rose white

            I and worms can prove Darwin’s Evononsense is nonsense but I’m sure the Evos would block any possibility of my getting a Nobel.

          • Mc

            You’re not making sense, unless you’re trying to be tongue in cheek.

          • rationalobservations?

            WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!?

          • Woman In White

            Where is yours ?

          • rationalobservations?

            You don’t specify which particular evidence you require – but here’s the evidence that “Jesus” could not be the Jewish “messiah”:

            (1) Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies

            What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? One of the central themes of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

            Specifically, the Bible says he will:

            Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

            Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

            Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)

            Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).

            If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.

            Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible’s description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

            Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

            (2) Jesus Did Not Embody the Personal Qualifications of Messiah

            A. Messiah as Prophet

            The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum – Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides – Teshuva 9:2)

            Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylon, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets – Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

            Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended, and thus could not be a prophet.

            B. Descendent of David

            Many prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

            The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father – and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David. (1)

            According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (2) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

            C. Torah Observance

            The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

            Throughout the Christian “New Testament,” Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), “He does not observe Shabbat!”

            (3) Mistranslated Verses “Referring” to Jesus

            Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text – which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

            A. Virgin Birth

            The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

            B. Suffering Servant

            Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”

            In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews (“Israel”) are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the “Servant of God” (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.

            When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).

          • Woman In White

            Your blinkered a priori interpretations are not constitutive of “evidence”.

          • rationalobservations?

            First it’s important to note that accepting the reality of evolution is not a devotion to atheism.
            The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recognizes that humans evolved from other animals.
            Pope John Paul II openly recognized the realities of evolution in 1996.
            President John F. Kennedy had no problem with evolution. In fact, one of his speeches discussing our origin from the sea was played during a Super Bowl XLIX commercial for Carnival Cruise Lines.

            There are those who keep a liberal interpretation of their religion that allows compatibility with modern science. This has allowed millions of Christians and people of other faiths to contribute to advancements in medicine, sanitation, food supply, transportation, and other fields that have greatly increased the standard of living for mankind.

            And then there are those who keep a dogmatic interpretation of their religion that only leaves room for an 18th century understanding of the universe. Ironically these same people use computers and iPhones. They have no problem using technology that was made available by modern science while keeping their antiquated views of reality.

            “Creationists and Scientific Logic

            – Scott Anderson

            Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better? Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.

            Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted. The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I’m even leaving out several fields.

            They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science’s way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?

            Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.

            The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories – science is a unit.

            To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats. How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories – a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world – would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.

            We’ve been through that before – it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.”

          • sidor

            I am afraid you are wasting your time writing exceedingly long stories about nothing. You didn’t get the point. Evolution of the Universe is an observable phenomenon, regardless of what JFK, his wife or JPII thought about it.

            Darwin’s idea of “natural selection” as a mechanism of genetic evolution is inconsistent with the basic principles of physics. The poor guy invented, in a funny way, Maxwell’s Demon. His problem was that, due to his poor general education, he has never heard about the Demon, and didn’t know that it cannot be. Do you?

          • rationalobservations?

            Denial is not rebuttal.

            Nothing has yet been discovered that confounds the science of evolution. If you know of something – reveal it and you could become famous.

          • sidor

            Are you sure you understand what I wrote? Do you know what is Maxwell’s Demon? How far did you get with your school physics?

          • rationalobservations?

            What has a somewhat obscure consideration of entropy as related to thermodynamics got to do with the argument regarding evolution Vs ignorance?

          • sidor

            It is nice that you don’t hesitate to ask questions outlining the problems of your school education. Let me explain some basic points.

            1. The laws of thermodynamics are fundamental, universal and unquestionable.

            2. Maxwell invented his Demon as a device that violates the 2d law of thermodynamics by moving a system out of equilibrium.

            3. Darwin’s mechanism of genetic evolution by means of “natural selection” is this kind of Demon. For that reason it cannot be. Darwin’s problem was that he never studied physics properly.

            If you still have any problem with comprehending this, don’t hesitate to ask a question.

          • Woman In White

            For once, I congratulate you.

          • sidor

            You shouldn’t agree with what is beyond your comprehension, even for once. Be humble.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            By your standard of proof, plants cannot grow; after all, plant growth leads to reduced entropy.

            The second law says only that an isolated system will tend towards equilibrium. But no isolated system actually exists in nature, anywhere in the universe. The second law, like Newton’s laws of motion (with their impossible smooth bodies and frictionless planes and straight lines) applies only to artificial situations, like experimental lab equipment.

            A biological system exchanges both energy and mass with its surroundings; it is an open system. In this circumstance, entropy need not increase; a biochemical reaction can *reduce* the number of probable states, since energy can enter the system and permit reactions that would not happen spontaneously.

          • sidor

            Thanks for your detailed explanation of your problems in understanding what I wrote. To understand that what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote you have to try to do either (or both) of the following two things:

            1. Read again what I wrote, slowly.

            2. Refresh your school physics as far as it concerns Maxwell’s Demon.

          • Woman In White

            I can’t pretend to understand every subtlety of your suggestions, but they do at least help me understand your religious positions.

            You *really* do need to give more thought to the complementarity of God’s transcendence and immanence as Creator.

          • Sanctimony

            ‘complementarity’ …. Now I’ve heard it all….

          • Woman In White

            You simply demonstrate your inability to understand adult conversation.

          • Sanctimony

            What a wonderful ‘complementarity’…. back to the Sorbonne, you old baggage to finish the course you never graduated in…..

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Natural selection relies only on differential reproduction; here’s a gene variant that allows me to use a new food source, and in that way enables me to lay one more egg than another bird; my genes will increase in frequency. The evolution of complexity is a separate q from natural selection. Complexity apparently contradicts entropy in whatever way it comes about (darwin, god, intelligent design); until you remember that organisms are not a closed system. We make ATP from the chemical bonds in our food, which derives from plants that use the sun.

            Let’s imagine a gene with 100 base pairs. One base pair mutates spontaneously, and the new protein that results now has a longer half-life in a neuronal membrane (say). As a result the membrane can integrate incoming nerve impulses during a wider window. This turns out to be advantageous to the organism and is positively selected. None of this new complexity requires any extra investment of energy – though if it did, there is no shortage of energy sources in a cell. The cell is not an isolated system obeying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

          • rose white

            Williams and the Pope both worship Satan. Do a little research into Catholicm and its idolatries.

          • rationalobservations?

            Evidence?

            However. Careful study of any version of christer bible reveals that the barbaric god “Yahweh” murdered countless millions of people and instructed or indirectly caused the slaughter of millions more. With the same bible – you will find that “Satan” killed only 10 people – and that was as a dare from “god” so more indirect murder by “Yahweh”.

            If I had a single superstitious bone in my body – my backing would go to Satan.

            It’s wonderful (for humanity) that none of those imaginary super-spooks actually exist in the real world. Now all we need to do now as a species is finally and completely grow out of belief in religion and all that barbarity may finally be behind us.

          • rose white

            Do you have a link to Williams admitting humans came from monkeys?

          • rationalobservations?

            I know of no one with any knowledge of the evidence who imagines that our particular species of apes “came from monkeys”.

            http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

          • Woman In White

            That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution

            Then why, Ratty, do you unfailingly link the two, as you have done again in here BTW in your “rational” commentary (AKA atheist prejudice masquerading as “science”) ?

        • kingkevin3

          The point is most people like myself who have hard science degrees find him intolerable not because he maybe right about evolution , just as he may be right about there being no God. It is his insistence on the fact that makes him as anti-scientific as those he seeks to harangue. Real scientists, like Einstein, spend their lives searching for the truth. They don’t harangue people incessantly about beliefs. They merely do their research and see where it leads them. If you were to ask any of the great scientists of the past if God existed, they would say , probably not, but they would never be so arrogant as to rule out the possibility altogether.

          • Miss Floribunda Rose

            No amount of research can ever lead to proof of a god’s existence. How could it? And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The existence of an invisible winged being is not possible. Neither is the existence of God.

          • rose white

            Flori, you are blaspheming God and will die before or during Armageddon and if not then certainly when Jesus returns.

          • Miss Floribunda Rose

            Armageddon outta here……

          • rose white

            LOL You wish to say something?

          • rationalobservations?

            Quite recently Dawkins described himself as a nontheist regarding the potential existence of any of the several hundred thousand assorted gods, goddesses and god-men that appear in human folklore, legends and mythology.

            I join him is not totally and absolutely discounting the possible existence of any of the named supernatural entities. I just find that the possibility is off the scale of anything approaching probable and that extreme improbability is compounded by the evidence of the fraudulent origins of the world’s major religions that makes it far less probable that the gods they base their constantly changing, confused and contradictory legends around are now or ever were real.

            I have to say I admire Dawkins patience and polite responses in the face of the same old. same old often aggressive bunkum and smug ignorance from those dwindling few who remain in thrall to one religion., or another.

          • Woman In White

            I just find that the possibility is off the scale of anything approaching probable

            I assume that this statement is backed up by some mathematics.

            Can you please post a link to a mathematical demonstration of this claim about the probabilities ?

          • Sanctimony

            No !

          • rationalobservations?

            Logic is not dependent upon mathematics. Especially not the flawed and ridiculous pseudo mathematics to be found within failed apologetics for the rapidly dying out death cults of religion.

            Lets have some actual evidence of the existence of your god or gods and the historical origin of your religion?

          • Woman In White

            Logic is not dependent upon mathematics

            Probabilities OTOH are.

            (cripes, I learned that in Primary School)

          • rose white

            Hi, correct and now research is showing that worms prove the Earth is 6,000 years old and 4,300 years ago there was a total flood that wiped out all life.

          • rationalobservations?

            What “research”?
            Where is that research published?
            What peer reviewed evidence has been presented that proves a global flood around 4,300 years ago?
            If there was a flood that was deep enough to cover the whole Earth and the highest mountains, where did all that water go?

            If there was a flood that wiped all life from the Earth, how did life repopulate all the far flung corners of the Earth and reestablish the unique flora and fauna of the most remote islands of the Earth?

          • Woman In White

            What peer reviewed evidence has been presented that proves a global flood around 4,300 years ago?

            Your literalist reading of Scripture is perfectly ludicrous.

          • rationalobservations?

            It’s the confused and contradictory “scriptures” to be found within any of the diverse and different versions of xtian bibles that appear “perfectly ludicrous”.
            Have you studied any of them?

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            THis is Rose White’s claim – that research has proved a flood 4300 YA. It’s to do with worms, but she hasn’t told us how yet. I prefer your posts on transcendence.

          • Woman In White

            Exactly.

        • rose white

          Take a tiny cell of your own and put it under a super microscope and then tell us exactly how such a marvel of chemistry, electricity and micromicro engineering could ever have developed in dirty water.
          And perhaps you could explain why every cell in your body has automatically replaced itself in the last 90 days and will do so for the rest of your life?
          Worms make fools of you Evolutionists.

          • rationalobservations?

            Who in their right mind would imagine that a fully developed cell that took countless millions of years to evolve could somehow spontaneously have developed in “dirty water”?

            You still have yet to explain this apparently wacko worm hypothesis of yours.

          • rose white

            LOL worms make fools of you!

          • rationalobservations?

            You are making a fool of yourself. Why do you continue to do so?

          • Sanctimony

            What is all this gibberish….?

          • rose white

            LOL> worms! They make fools of all you silly Evos.

            They prove the Earth is 6,000 years old and The Flood was real.
            One day soon you may understand.
            Today you are at the ridiculous stage.

            As Schopenhauer said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

          • Sanctimony

            To quote your buddy Schopenhauer….Intellect is invisible to the woman who has none….. referring to you and your barking fellow virago banshee loudmouth…

            PS…. spot the deliberate mistake in the quote for a 5 billion year discount from St Peter on presentation at turnstile 5216 in Purgatory….

          • rose white

            childishness is a sure sign of low intelligence.

          • rose white

            LOL THe WORMS FACTS is way above the level of your monkey brain to understand stick to DARWINS THEORY!
            LOL FACTS BEAT THEORIES ANY DAY OF CREATION.

          • Sanctimony

            Are we talking about the Diet of Worms (1521)… or the Treaty of Worms (1743) ?

          • rose white

            Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done in Earth as it is in heaven, Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses and we forgive those that trespass against us,
            lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever, amen.

          • Woman In White

            Anyone who doesn’t believe in the intrinsic truth of atheist Dogma, Ratty.

          • rationalobservations?

            So you believe that the first biological cell spontaneously developed in some “dirty water”?

            I suppose its a slightly more credible explanation than Gen1 or Gen2 – but there are far more credible and scientifically plausible, evidence based explanations you know?

        • Woman In White

          Please explain the origin of causality.

          • Sanctimony

            Causality Is the relation between one process (the cause) and
            another (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly
            responsible for the second….

            In your case bigotry, dogma, zealotry and exhibitionism result in the creature who hectors, lectures and shouts down any of the sane and rational posters on this blog….

          • Woman In White

            Causality Is the relation between one process (the cause) and another (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly
            responsible for the second….

            Your statement does not constitute an explanation of its origin.

          • rationalobservations?

            How about the origin of time and space in this still rapidly expanding Universe? You know, the singularity event that occurred 12,820,000,000 years ago.

          • Woman In White

            I asked you first, and you still haven’t answered except with your usual evasions.

          • Sanctimony

            I asked you first…. and I’m vewy, vewy croth that you have been so evathive… and I’m going to go and thtamph my foot in the playground….

          • Woman In White

            This latest display of your childish behaviour hardly surprises anyone.

          • rationalobservations?

            Your rhetorical question has been answered in several ways. The fact that you fail to understand and/or disagree with the responses you’ve received is your problem.

            I had to laugh at the queen of obfuscation complaining about what she erroneously perceives as “evasion” of her “when did you stop beating your wife” type leading questions.

            What is your explanation of life, the universe, “causality” and everything?
            Please provide authentic, verified and verifiable evidence that supports your answer.

          • Woman In White

            Your rhetorical question has been answered in several ways.

            It is not a “rhetorical question”.

            And no, it hasn’t.

            What is the origin of causality ?

          • rationalobservations?

            What is the evidence of primary causality?

          • Sanctimony

            What are we today ? Did you start the day as an African grey, a macaw or a parakeet… you make more noise than all three singing a chorus, but make less sense than the average village idiot….

            All your convoluted treatises and didactic pronouncements with their lovely little esoteric gibberings and witterings add up to precisely zilch… I can see you sitting in your ivory tower in some high-rise condo in the ghastly Riviera with no one to spout off your rubbish to, so you resort to your keyboard to vent all your frustrations, both physical and intellectual…. Goodnight…

          • Sanctimony

            Of course it doesn’t… you sanctimonious old boot….

          • rationalobservations?

            Been there – done that., and so has Sanctimony I notice…

          • Woman In White

            You have explained exactly nothing of its origin.

            Are you liars ?

          • rationalobservations?

            Please explain the origin yourself with the evidence that supports your hypothesis?

        • johnb1945

          Do you think the thousands of “God men” and religions could just be temporally appropriate ways of conceiving the same thing?

          Men are supposed to have difficulties conceiving of God.

          Or there’s another view, equally valid, that in science exceptionalism proves the theory. You could conduct an experiment 100 or 1000 times and fail to prove a theory, but if on the 101st or 1001st you get a result…..

          • rationalobservations?

            When anyone does a repeatable experiment that indicates the existence of all (or any) of the many thousands of deities that currently appear exclusively in human originated fiction, we may all become believers.

            In the meantime the rapidly accelerating trend toward non-belief in magic and all “the gods” continues without interruption all across the free, democratic and increasingly secular world..

          • Woman In White

            Please can you provide me with details of how to construct an instrument for the testing of the transcendental using materials existing in the immanent.

          • rationalobservations?

            For “transcendental” read “imaginary” and/or “undetectable”.

          • Sanctimony

            No… but I believe there are ways of evaluating the rabid pronouncements of hormonally deranged and rampantly frustrated vestal virgins …

          • Woman In White

            Troll.

      • LG

        Oxford, St Andrews, Durham, Westminster, Aberdeen, Antwerp – ‘modern’ universities? Hahahahahaha!

      • rose white

        Well said, Samton,

        Dawkins sold his soul to Satan when he stopped being a Christian to pursue other women.

        • Sanctimony

          How did he pursue them… on a horse perhaps… or did he ‘loiter’ outside the exits of down at heel night spots in Blackpool, ready to pounce on inebriated scrubbers as they tried to totter home on their 8 inch heels…. please enlighten us….

    • LG

      Well said.

    • Tamerlane

      He’s also a cvnt. You missed that point but important to mention it as it negates your point.

      • Miss Floribunda Rose

        How dare you accuse Mr. Dawkins of being a kunt!

      • Sanctimony

        A certain virago on here claims to have one, while also being one !

    • rose white

      LOL on the other hand Dawkins spent 45 years as a good Christian before Satan tempted him with the ‘sex,drugs’n’rock’n’roll’ ‘ celebrity lifestyle and all the worship of people like yourself.
      God says do not worship anyone.
      Now Dawk is leading many people away from God – if you want to know what happens to such people just read some Old Testament accounts of idol worshippers being slaughtered by God.

      • Sanctimony

        God slaughters idol worshippers, does he ?

        So all those poor peasants with images of the BVM and various saints are going to hacked to pieces by this merciful, omnipotent God, are they ?

        • rose white

          your reply avoided my statement – classic sign of inability to connect the dots. You need to evolve a bit more.

          You Evolutionists will be the ones cheering the banning of Jesus’s Prayer so here it is.

          Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done in Earth as it is in heaven, Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses and we forgive those that trespass against us, lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever, amen.

      • rationalobservations?

        45 years as a “good christian”??
        More lies??

        Like many of us recovered christians of very long standing – Dawkins was merely culturally christian until reaching his teenage years and achieved the rational move to non-belief in any and all of “the gods” that now increasingly predominates in the free, democratic western world.

    • Woman In White

      The world’s top drinker is such a great man …

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6htOKb-2GwI/UdxL08AQvyI/AAAAAAAABTA/tDERoAYuIQw/s1600/dawkins-drink.jpg

      BTW, why did you leave out the dates of his career as the self-appointed Vicar of atheist bigotry ?

      • Sanctimony

        You prissy, self-righteous old bat !

        At least Dawkins has a brain and an ability to measure what he says, whilst your cavernous gob is permanently cranked open to its maximum…

        • Woman In White

          Your non-stop vicious trolling is indicative of a starved intellect with nothing else to “contribute” but hatred.

          • Sanctimony

            Scorn or derision, perhaps… hate is far too strong an emotion to be wasted on intellectual pygmies like you …

          • Woman In White

            The world’s top drinker no doubt agrees with your lovely obscurantism, Moany.

          • Sanctimony

            I suppose that you’ll now claim to have seen the full results from Dawkin’s liver function tests… incidentally, have you been tested for rabies lately ?

          • Sanctimony

            Endless ‘itys’….. now you open the flood gates of ‘isms’…. one thing for sure is that it must be many decades since you had an ‘asm’….

          • Woman In White

            My sarcasm about your idiotic contributions of non-stop anorak’d trollery is quite healthy, thanks.

    • Jeffrey Vernon

      RD has been showered with honours and distinctions. And yet…plenty of biologists and other scientists hear RD launching yet another broadside against atheism and inwardly groan and wish he’d stick to the day job. Some of them wonder how his coffee-table books, which few readers can have finished, launched him to such prominence. If he wants to identify religion as the great problem of our time (rather than a belief in other widespread forms of irrationality, like risk management, insurance and so on) he ought to have more interesting things to say about the sources of our morality.

      • rationalobservations?

        Ad hominem against Dawkins is futile since his opinion represents only his opinion and he in no way represents the growing majority of the citizens within the free, democratic and increasingly secular western world who tick the “no religion/not religious!” box in polls and surveys.

        The source of what we call morality in our own species would appear to be the same as that for other species that demonstrate enactment of unrewarded altruism and self sacrifice for their fellows. It is an evolved instinct that drives the vast, vast majority among growing legion of atheists to do good as it’s own reward.

        One of the greatest minds of the 20th century reflected upon your question as follows:

        “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

        — Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

        A question I have often asked good folk like you is:
        If a hypothetical drug was invented that stripped you of your religious faith and was administered to you., do you honestly believe that you would instantly become evil incarnate and run amok committing murder, rape and all other evil deeds imaginable?
        Are you truly (as Einstein described it) “in such a poor way”?

        Fortunately; the evidence of history (and the currently living generation) is that the vast majority of us recently evolved “human” species of apes have an instinct we call a “conscience” that defies the disgusting religious propaganda that would label us blameless individuals as “sinful”. Didn’t you ever hear of a “conscience”.

        Is it really only the less barbaric instructions in a human authored book called a “bible” that constrains you from all evil??

        • Woman In White

          The source of what we call morality in our own species would appear to be the same as that for other species

          You are an idiot, with no understanding at all of the vocabulary that you include in your typing.

          Morality is a product of cognitive ratiocination, which includes perception of our common or conflicting needs and desires, but transcends them in intellect.

          Intellect is unavailable as such to any other living species, even though there is some evidence of some partial intellective faculties in certain other mammalian ones.

          That is because intellect exists not just in capability, or intelligence, but also in history, or Culture.

          Morality is a product of Culture, which is simply the shared enjoyment of the products of the sharing of our cognitive ratiocination.

          These are the sources of Religion.

          Faith is very different.

          Faith comes in the acceptance of our Souls for the Love of God.

          Faith is not produced by propaganda.

          Atheism is.

          • Sanctimony

            Lots more ‘itys’, ‘isms’ and ‘ences’ from the hypervoluble WIW but absolutely no mention of how your ‘asms’ these days…

            There might be a very simple cure for your clinical frustration… obviously Tourettes complicates a specific diagnosis but I am sure that there would be psychotherapists who might off insights…

          • Woman In White

            The ghastly defective lunatic overenthusiasm that you demonstrate is more easily described.

            You are a stalker and a troll.

          • Sanctimony

            How original… hope you achieve a good ‘asm’ tonight…… arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…..

          • Sanctimony

            cognitive ratiocination .. when I thought I’d heard it all, you pull another rabbit from the top hat…. bravo !

          • Woman In White

            I am not responsible for your crass ignorance nor the defects of your attention to the benefits of education.

          • Sanctimony

            I stared at your comment for several moments not believing that I had just read the most sublime and comprehensive definition of utter gibberish….

            Then, I suddenly realised that there are seriously deranged posters and nutters who have only blogs like this as a vehicle to release their frustrations with their inane witterings of ‘itys’, ‘isms, ‘ions’ and every other platitude that escapes their Tourettes-driven gibberation….

            A charitable interpretation or diagnosis of your afflictions, which occasions these vituperative an intolerant eructions might be attributed to your frustration at not being able to achieve, what my childhood catechism described as any wilfull pleasure in the irregular motions of the flesh…… I do hope you come through this spiritual and physical crisis in you life and manage to marry the spitiritual and the physical….

            Aeterna non Caduca…..

          • Sanctimony

            Intellective…. That’s the best yet !

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          You’ve missed my point. As it happens, I’m an atheist and a scientist by profession. I just think that RD’s preoccupation with religion is grating, and that his criticism of it amounts to little more than an expression of his own bafflement (‘How can sensible people possibly think….’) allied to a literal reading of scriptures that few religious people would go in for: Look! Here’s a bit where God nukes Sodom! Religion is not the most serious delusion of our time, and (alas) science is not a safeguard against irrationality.

          • rationalobservations?

            Why are you so obsessed with Dawkins? He has wacko ideas and sometimes gets stumped by creationist wackos questions that most of us can answer easily. He is just a well respected and highly acclaimed retired scientist and lecturer. Dawkins speaks for Dawkins and his ignorance outside of his own discipline is understandable and excused by his brilliance within his discipline.

            I disagree with you. The greatest danger to the world comes from extremists motivated by religion. The western 4th century Roman founded religion called “christianity” is now thankfully powerless. It’s ideology still corrupts those dwindling folk that it still holds in thrall. The eastern religion is another matter and the secular world is rightly at war with that terror based tyranny.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            I’ve come late to the party. You wrote a post about RD’s honours and distinctions as though these immunised him against the attacks of believers; I replied to your post. I don’t think this betokens an obsession. Here’s a point of view: religion as a cultural force is everywhere in decline. The spasms of enthusiasm we see in Pakistan and Bangladesh are shocking precisely because they are unaccustomed (and like the Salem affair, at bottom they are nearly always explicable in political terms; local strongmen sending their rivals a warning about the mob violence they can call up).

          • rationalobservations?

            You write: “You wrote a post about RD’s honours and distinctions as though these immunised him against the attacks of believers..”

            Where have I implied or asserted that any “immunisation against the attacks” of the rump of believers is afforded by the honours and world wide acclaim of scientists heaped upon the best selling author and ever popular lecturer and public speaker Dawkins?

            Religion is in decline all across the free and democratic lands of the world.

            Those who attack Dawkins as if that were an attack on the concept of free, secular non-belief are failing.

            There are rapidly growing millions of non-believers who have come to non-belief by any number of routes. Many have possibly never heard of Dawkins and most certainly have not read his books or their sales would be even higher.

            Discussion of the correct statements made by Dawkins, and ridiculous opinions expressed by Dawkins appears merely an off topic attempt at diversion from the absence of reason or evidence supporting religion and the damning evidence against religion.

          • rationalobservations?

            We appear to be in broad agreement regarding many things.

            I find Dawkins frustrating much of the time.

            Those who seek to attack rational, peaceful, democratic atheism (and the world’s fastest growing human cohort that of represented by atheists) by attacking one occasionally wacko but previously and often brilliant individual atheist – are merely wasting their time whistling in the hurricane.

            Why would Dawkins need “immunising” against anything?

  • MC

    Sounds like a worthwhile read, and I suspect RD will find it amusing too. Nothing wrong in hearing a good story, even if it is based on old mythologies. Most people who read marvel & DC comics don’t actually believe superman exists; nothing wrong in read this as a bit of irrelevant fun and mischievous frivolity.

  • MacGuffin

    ”The tone swerves hilariously between puerile double-entendre (there’s a running sequence of gags about ‘seeing Upper Bottom’) and lacerating comedy about the atheist movement and its acolytes.”

    I am afraid to read this book because I might laugh myself to death.

  • sidor

    Here Prof. Dawkins admits that he is a believer in Intelligent Design:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

    Enjoy!

    • rationalobservations?

      Yep. Dawkins had some wacko ideas. None so wacko as the idea that a supernatural entity somehow thought itself into existence from nothing and sometime later wished the whole amazing, complex, infinite, violent, incredibly rapidly exapanding 13,820,000,000 year old universe into existence from nothing.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX45gTu5UpQ

      • sidor

        I understand you reject the modern cosmology and Big Bang. Still prefer the 19th century concept of infinite Universe?

        I also noticed that you fail to understand how idiotic was Dawkins’ answer to the question about the origin of life. Try to think again. If you get it, you will be able to appreciate his talent of a clown.

        • rationalobservations?

          I agree that the response by Dawkins was idiotic. he often is an embarrassment and is NOT a spokesman for atheism or the rapidly growing legion of atheists.

          Attacking Dawkins is a curious pastime for those who cannot justify any argument for an alternative to evidence based science and history. Ad hominem and ad hominem by proxy is no replacement for evidence based arguments.

          Dawkins speaks only for Dawkins and any discredit that can be attached to him in no way discredits the evidence based science he has done so much to popularise and for which he has attracted so much worldwide acclaim.

          • sidor

            It wasn’t actually about theism/atheism. The question was very specific and rational: how the first self-replicating molecule emerged. Do you have an answer, without referring to the extraterrestrial supermind?

          • rationalobservations?

            Abiogenesis.

            Here is the answer to your question by the Professor of Pathology at NYU Langone Medical Center

            Check out the many great answers to this question, here on Quora: What are the chemical origins of life? How did non-living chemical compounds generate self-replicating, complex life forms?

            https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-chemical-origins-of-life-How-did-non-living-chemical-compounds-generate-self-replicating-complex-life-forms

            I second http://www.quora.com/Joshua-Engel's comment that thinking in terms of the evidence for abiogenesis is a little odd. Abiogenesis happened because at some point there was no life on our planet, and then there there was life, therefore life arose from non-life.

            There are many hypotheses as well as some solid scientific evidence regarding the possible chemical mechanisms that gave rise to the macromolecules and the structures that are key to life. One of the most recent and intriguing ones regards The Origin of Membrane Bioenergetics

            From my answer to the question I linked to before:

            My summary: the other common property to all life, besides that of having a genetic code, is that energy is stored in the form of ion gradients over membranes. Without this harnessing, energy would be dissipated and could not sustain life. Nick Lane and Bill Martin propose a completely natural origin for this membrane bioenergetics from completely inert materials, basically rocks, carbon dioxide and water. The origin would have been in hydrothermal wells, where natural proton gradients across the thin ferrous sulfide (FeS) walls that exist in deep-sea alkaline (high PH) hydrothermal vents could drive the assimilation of carbon, giving rise to proto-cells. These proto-cells would have created a proton gradient and concentrated simple organic molecules formed by carbon assimilation. Once a sodium-proton pump evolved (and these are relatively simple proteins, the proto-cells could close their membranes completely, and still derive energy from the sodium pump. At this point, they could have become left the vent and still capture energy.

            Lane was inspired by the bacteria and Archaea that live in these deep sea hydrothermal wells, they use iron and sulphur-containing proteins to convert hydrogen and carbon dioxide into organic molecules.

            I think it is a very elegant hypothesis because it could explain how life arose from very simple components, in the extreme conditions of ancient Earth, through a completely natural process, one that is still used by microorganisms living today in those deep-sea vents.

            Nature News and Views had a good article when the original paper came out:How life emerged from deep-sea rocks

            Another hypothesis that makes sense is the RNA world hypothesis , because RNA can both act genetic code and have enzymatic properties as well. And it is possible to create self-replicating RNA in the lab:
            Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule A genetic code could have started like that, and then evolved to interact with proteins (polymerases) that took on the function of replicating nucleic acid.

            https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-evidence-exists-for-abiogenesis

          • sidor

            I don’t think you, or any of the veterinarians you referred to understood the problem. The essential question is whether or not Universe is in ergodic equilibrium. It was popularly explained by Dirac:

            In 1971, at a conference meeting, Dirac expressed his views on the existence of God.[41] Dirac explained that the existence of God could only be justified if an improbable event were to have taken place in the past:

            It could be that it is extremely difficult to start life. It might be that it is so difficult to start life that it has happened only once among all the planets. …Let us consider, just as a conjecture, that the chance life starting when we have got suitable physical conditions is 10^-100. I don’t have any logical reason for proposing this figure, I just want you to consider it as a possibility. Under those conditions…it is almost certain that life would not have started. And I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence of a god to start off life. I would like, therefore, to set up this connexion between the existence of a god and the physical laws: if physical laws are such that to start off life involves an excessively small chance, so that it will not be reasonable to suppose that life would have started just by blind chance, then there must be a god, and such a god would probably be showing his influence in the quantum jumps which are taking place later on. On the other hand, if life can start very easily and does not need any divine influence, then I will say that there is no god.[41]

          • rose white

            every cell in your body is so complex that it is crazy to think it just grewed like topsy in some dirty water.

            All this EVONONSENSE is the strange doctrines of the End Times that Jesus and the disciples spoke about.

          • rationalobservations?

            Who thinks that any complex and long evolved biological cell “just grewed(sic) like topsy in some dirty water”?

            The science behind abiogenesis is far more complex. The evidence of 4,000,000,000 years of evolution proves that.

            That is self evidently nonsense. As nonsensical as the idea that life was merely wished into existence from nothing by one imaginary super-spook., or another.

          • rationalobservations?

            The raw materials required for the precursors of non-organic chemical proto-life are the most abundant materials in the Universe.

            Three leading world laboratories have conducted successful experiments in the production of self sustaining “proto-life” and in one case, that material was sustained long enough to demonstrate mutation and the first development of evolution by means of natural selection.

            One scientist expressed the view that the raw materials required to kickstart the first processes toward cellular life are so abundant that given the right environment – life is unstoppable. The previous estimates that life is improbable on more than 30 planets in the known universe has been now increased to a minimum of 300 planets.

            None of the other planets in our solar system have the environment suited to the development of life – although recent discoveries on Mars indicate that it may once have had that environment and that the traces of primitive life signs are evident.

            Life is rare because the environment that allows the commencement of the chemical processes that lead to life is rare.

            All it takes for life to develop and progress through the trial and error sifting of evolution are the right chemistry, the right environment and around 4,000,000,000 years. Just as the history of life on Earth indicates and confirms.

          • Woman In White

            All it takes for life to develop and progress through the trial and error sifting of evolution are the right chemistry, the right environment and around 4,000,000,000 years

            That is an undemonstrable statement, and attempts to reproduce what we know using the exact right conditions are a consequence of life on Earth, and cannot be assumed to be accurate portrayals of causation.

            BTW, what is the origin of causality ?

          • rationalobservations?

            One of the origins of so called “causality” is the clutching at straws logical fallacy and non-argument of a rapidly dwindling cohort of religiots failing to present supporting evidence or a reason for their particular gods and their particular religion.

          • Woman In White

            Please demonstrate the non-existence of causality by means of evidence and logic.

          • rationalobservations?

            Demonstrate the evidence of original causality and provide evidence in support of that hypothesis.

          • rose white

            LOL. Childish stupidity!

            The worms prove Earth is young and The Flood was real.

          • rationalobservations?

            ROFL

            How do worms prove the Earth is young and what evidence is there of a global flood?

          • rose white

            LOL rubbing wet rocks together may be fun but will generate nothing bust sediemnt – not life.
            But HYPOTHESIZE all you want in your Trekkie bubble.

          • rationalobservations?

            Who thinks that abiogenesis resulted from “rubbing wet rocks together”. Who did the “rubbing”?

            I know of no scientific hypothesis that is similar to your description.

          • Woman In White

            I think it is a very elegant hypothesis

            Then you’re running about with a definition of “elegant” as divergent as your definition of “rational”.

            Meanwhile, what is the origin of causality ?

          • rationalobservations?

            It’s an interesting question you ask regarding “causality”.

            If you hypothesise that everything must have a “cause” and the cause of the universe was your “god” – what caused your “god”? Then what was the cause of the cause of your “god”. Then what was the cause of the cause of the cause of your “god”, Then…., but maybe you get the picture?

            The cause of the still rapidly expanding universe was a singularity event that occurred 13,820,000,000 years ago and still resounds around the universe as background radiation.

          • Woman In White

            The cause of the still rapidly expanding universe was a singularity event that occurred 13,820,000,000 years ago and still resounds around the universe as background radiation.

            Glad to hear that you accept the scientific doctrine of Monsignor Georges Lemaître, Catholic Priest.

            You continue to have failed to provide an explanation for the existence of causality.

          • rationalobservations?

            Maybe these will suit you better than current scientific evidence?

            Greek Creation

            In the beginning was Chaos. Then came Earth which produced Sky. Covering Earth each night, Sky fathered children upon her. Earth was personified as Gaia/Terra and sky was Ouranos (Uranus). Their children included the Titan parents of most of the Olympian gods and goddesses, as well as many other creatures, including the Cyclopes, Giants,Hecatonchires, Erinyes, and more. Aphrodite was the offspring of Ouranos.

            Norse Creation

            In Norse mythology, there was only a chasm, Ginnungagap, in the beginning (somewhat like the Greeks’ Chaos) bounded on either side by fire and ice. When fire and ice met, they combined to form a giant, named Ymir, and a cow, named Audhumbla, to nourish Ymir. She survived by licking the salty ice blocks. From her licking emerged Bur, the grandfather of the Aesir.

            Rig Veda Creation

            W. Norman Brown interprets the Rig Vedato come up with various underlying creation stories. Here is the one most like the preceding myths. Before the divine pair of Earth and Sky, who created the gods, was another god, Tvastr, the “first fashioner”. He created Earth and Sky, as a dwelling place, and many other things. Tvastr was a universal impregnator who made other things reproduce. Brown says that although Tvastr was the first dynamic force, before him were the inanimate, inactive Cosmic Waters.

            Chinese Creation

            The Chinese creation story comes from the end of the 3 Kingdoms period. Heaven and Earth were in a state of chaos or cosmic egg for 18,000 years. When it broke apart, the high and clear formed Heaven, the dark formed Earth, and P’an-ku (“coiled-up antiquity”) stood in the middle supporting and stablilizing. P’an-ku kept growing for another 18,000 years during which time Heaven also grew.

            Another version of the P’an-ku (the first-born) story tells of his becoming earth, sky, stars, moon, mountains, rivers, soil, etc. Parasites feeding on his body, impregnated by wind, became human beings.

            There are hundreds of others – including the two different ridiculous creation myths of Gen1 and Gen2 within the diverse and different, confused and internally contradictory versions of xtian bibles that started appearing toward the end of the 4th century.

          • Woman In White

            In other words you’ve no actual answer to my question.

          • rose white

            Agreed but do you realise that worms prove the Earth is young and The Flood was real just as the Bible states?
            What is needed is not more idiocy from Dawkins and Hawking but some serious demonstration of just how accurate and truthful the Bible really is.
            Just its statement that ‘Earth is suspended on nothing,’ is far more scientific than anything Hawk’n’Dawk can come out with isn’t it?

          • rationalobservations?

            Repeating nonsense fails to make it sense.

            Have you got any evidence and logic supported argument to put forward?

          • Sanctimony

            Oh yeah…. the animals marched in two by two… although a couple of pigs managed to fly in….

          • Woman In White

            Science is not based on evidence, it’s based on theories and experimentation. Evidence is just a tool of Science, not its basis.

          • Eques

            Furthermore, anti-theists, despite claiming to venerate science, seem unable to distinguish between the concepts of “proof” and “evidence”. They are always saying “there’s no evidence that God exists” when they mean “no proof”

          • rationalobservations?

            There’s no proof OR evidence of any of the many thousands of undetectable and imaginary “gods”, “goddesses” or god-men “messiahs”.

          • Woman In White

            Simply saying something doesn’t magically make it true, Ratty.

          • Sanctimony

            Do stop patronising poor ‘Ratty’ !

          • Woman In White

            I don’t “patronise” him.

          • rationalobservations?

            Truth at last. LOL

          • rationalobservations?

            Any mere attempt at that is shrugged off. Better informed than these have failed in the attempt and no one has ever answered the questions I ask.

          • rationalobservations?

            Writing something without supporting evidence doesn’t make it true either.

          • sidor

            I quoted Dirac explaining how by calculating the probability of the emergence of the first self-replicating molecule one can prove the necessity of the concept of God. Look at it.

          • Sanctimony

            Did Archimedes impart this self-proclaimed wisdom upon you ?

          • Woman In White

            Did Trimalchio teach you your self-evident imbecility ?

          • rationalobservations?

            Scientific Theories are the cornerstone of science and education. They are the result of the examination and testing of evidence.
            Evidence is the basis of all science.
            No modern Scientific Theory has ever been overturned.

          • sidor

            Einstein proclaimed his famous theoretical principle: “God doesn’t play dice”. Do you think he based it on some experimental studies?

          • rationalobservations?

            “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
            — Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life

            “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
            — Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

          • Woman In White

            The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. — Albert Einstein

          • rationalobservations?

            “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”
            — Albert Einstein

          • Woman In White

            Father Antonio Vivaldi, Catholic Priest :

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMHguvZPcqQ

          • rationalobservations?

            Yep, Ole Albert was the consummate diplomat. He often said and wrote ambiguous things in public while revealing his contempt for religions he called “childish superstition” in private correspondence and conversation.

            “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”

            — Albert Einstein, The World as I See It

            Many of us atheists are in awe of the non-magical majesty and wonder of the Universe and believe in at least one “god”., it’s name is spelled:
            N-A-T-U-R-E.

          • Woman In White

            Then you’re a pagan and a deist.

            Both of these are sufficient to explain your blinkered dogmatism.

          • sidor

            Read what you quoted, slowly. Do you see “a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously”? Anthropological concept of God propagated by the Church is a disgusting form of paganism invented for idiots. You have to separate it from the real faith.

          • Woman In White

            The Church does not have “an anthropological concept of God” — you really should stop believing what your Protestant dogma claims about the Church.

          • sidor

            And what are those anthropologically shaped idols doing in the Catholic churches which the mentally retarded flock is praying on? Aren’t the popular images of an old guy with the beard supposed to represent God?

          • Woman In White

            They are plaster, stone, and wood ; artistic representations of men and women who have served the Faith, to remind us symbolically of their virtues — not “idols”.

          • rationalobservations?

            What is the nature and focus of what you call “real faith”?

          • sidor

            Maimonides pointed out that the concept of transcendental God is abstract and complicated for understanding. Most of the people are unable to comprehend it due to the natural constraints of their cognitive capacity. Something like quantum mechanics.

            Therefore, there is real faith for those few who understand. It’s God’s blessing. The rest must follow “necessary faith” under the instruction of the priests who perform ceremonies in churches. The numerous entertaining fables written in the Bible are also for this retarded majority. Like the stories of God talking to someone, using acoustical means of communication. Or all sorts of angels and miracles. All this is of course a form of paganism necessary for entertaining the stupid majority, in order to keep some form of discipline.

          • rationalobservations?

            As Maimonides is reported to have written:

            “Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”

            All that is written about Yahweh since around 600 BCE (when all the other Jewish gods and goddesses were forcibly removed) when the current Hebrew/Jewish mythologies begin to appear is not “proof” of anything but the wondrous nature of human imagination and the evil desire for power and wealth that is at the heart of all major religions.

          • sidor

            You again missed the point: you problem is that you don’t understand the concept of transcendental God. It is therefore thoroughly idiotic to try to discuss what is beyond your comprehension referring to irrelevant details.

          • Woman In White

            you[r] problem is that you don’t understand the concept of transcendental God

            Your problem is that you do not understand that God is both immanent and transcendental, in Trinity, Eucharist, and Church.

          • sidor

            Could you please stop pushing this disgusting Catholic paganism insulting my religious feelings?

          • Woman In White

            Your feelings are not sacrosanct nor the holy of holies.

          • Woman In White

            Except that Divine Intervention exists (or has existed), and NO Christian can claim the opposite — therefore, your logic is flawed.

          • sidor

            Interactive God. Only pagan Catholics believe this rubbish.

          • Woman In White

            Then you claim the Creation itself to be “rubbish”.

            If so, you pure and simple do not believe in God.

          • sidor

            I repeat: I don’t believe in your pagan Catholic superstition of interactive God, and I convey my condolences to anyone who does: mental retardation is not medically curable.

          • Woman In White

            God.

            There you go, back to square one.

          • rationalobservations?

            Which “god” and what is the evidence of its existence?

          • Woman In White

            What a load of pole-dancing nonsense, Ratty !!!

            No modern Scientific Theory has ever been overturned.

            Luminiferous aether is the topical example, though there are countless thousands upon thousands of others.

            Theories meanwhile can either be a consequence or a cause of experimentation, but their origin is always in human imagination, not in the inert matter of evidence, instruments, nor any other such mere tools.

          • rationalobservations?

            What was the Scientific Theory of luminiferous aether, who established that Scientific Theory and where does a Scientific Theory of luminiferous aether figure within modern science?

            I think that you may be ignorant of the meaning if a Scientific Theory? It has nothing to do with any hypotheses, guesses, hunches or what some non-scientific types refer to as a “theory”.

            There are very few Scientific Theories. It is very, very difficult to establish a Scientific Theory. No modern Scientific Theory has ever been overturned.

          • Woman In White

            Go and read a book — it would be better use of your time than trying to defend these ludicrous mystical claims about Science.

          • rationalobservations?

            Really???

        • LG

          Is that you at the back there?

          • sidor

            I am the next to the last, the one whose bottom you inquire with your nose.

        • rationalobservations?

          Since there appears to be no edge or end point to the Universe – it appears to be “infinite” since there is nothing known to exist “outside” of the Universe.

          • Woman In White

            You confuse theory and truth.

      • Miss Floribunda Rose

        What’s exapanding? By the way, I’ve just discovered that
        h
        o
        m
        o
        erectus causes moderation to occur! F–k knows why, but there you go.

        • rose white

          LOL Floribunda,
          Those Australopithers believe anything after a few XXXX’s!

      • rose white

        you people who think you is evolved from monkeys are blaspheming God and promoting Satan.
        You need to get your thinking straightened out before Jesus returns,

        • rationalobservations?

          Who thinks that the recently evolved species of “great apes” (among which we homo-sapiens sapiens belong) “evolved from monkeys”?

      • rose white

        so can you tell us all why some of you evolved monkeys claim the universe is 4.8, 8.2, 11.6 billlion years old?
        Why not stick with the 6,000 years old that the worms prove?

        • rationalobservations?

          Who claims that the Universe is 4.8, 8.2 or 11.6 billion years old?

          How do worms prove that the Universe is only 6000 years old?

          • rose white

            LOL because the worms prove it?
            because you monkeys aren’t intelligent enough to understand.

            you get more childish each time you open your silly mouth.

          • rationalobservations?

            How do worms “prove it”?

            Making infantile and unsupported claims is not any kind of argument.

            I am however – and like you; 98% ape with considerably less common DNA with monkeys.

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          Let’s say that a single maverick scientist came along with a claim that fossil worms were 6000 years old (and that no earlier organisms ever existed). I have to tell you that science would not wobble on its axis. There are 100s of papers on far less controversial matters – like the minimal effect of weight loss on diabetes – and a handful appearing to show, on the other hand, that weight loss can be beneficial. The handful have not (yet) altered the prevailing view that weight loss is not by itself a treatment for diabetes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far the scales are tilted towards a universe around 10 B years old (depending on the size of the Hubble constant). I don’t know why some christians get so worked up about this; is god dethroned by an old universe? Does the bible insist that creation happened 6000 years ago? Plenty of scientists are christians, and don’t let cosmology interfere with their belief.

          • rose white

            LOL>

            You Evos contradict yourself every time you open your mouths!

            Like I said WORMS PROVE EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD AND THE FLOOD WAS REAL 4,300 YEAR AGO.

            It is nothing to do with fossil worms.

            The first fossils in the Pre-Wales rocks -oops sorry Pre-Cambrian LOL – (since when has a place been a time?) quite clearly show God’s orderly creation.

            Any ‘Christian’ scientist who claims EVONONSENSE is true is by definition not Christian but is acting as a mouthpiece for Satan.

            Thanks to your years of addiction to StarTrek you are a Schopenhauer First Stager: He said: ‘All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.’

            You have two more stages to pass through as you grow up.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            Can you tell me what the worms prove, and when they proved it? I am merely asking what is the nature of the evidence. Where did you read about it? You have not told anyone on this page who has asked you for more details.

          • rose white

            your hero proved most of it – I merely linked his work and mine – et voila! worms prove Earth is Young and The Flood was real.

      • Woman In White

        Yes, the idea that Reality just spontaneously appeared without cause out of nowhere and from nothing is obviously so much more “rational”, Ratty.

        • rationalobservations?

          Who thinks that the Universe “spontaneously appeared” 13,820,000,000 years ago and who thinks that the raw material that later formed the first chemical chains that after many millions of years led to the first most primitive form of life “spontaneously appeared” some 4,000,000,000 years ago?

          • Woman In White

            Who thinks that the Universe “spontaneously appeared” 13,820,000,000 years ago

            Yourself, obviously, given your self-motivated addition of these extra details.

          • rationalobservations?

            Only the dwindling rump of creationists appear to think that the vast and ancient Universe was somehow magically spontaneously wished into existence a few thousand years ago.

            ” Creationists and Scientific Logic

            Scott Anderson

            Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better? Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.

            Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted. The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I’m even leaving out several fields.

            They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science’s way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?

            Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.

            The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories – science is a unit.

            To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats. How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories – a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world – would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.

            We’ve been through that before – it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.”

          • Woman In White

            Only the dwindling rump of creationists appear to think that the vast and ancient Universe was somehow magically spontaneously wished into existence a few thousand years ago.

            You can’t wallpaper over your inability to follow an argument with your cut’n’paste tactics, Ratty.

            Why is there something rather than nothing ?

            Or do you believe in consequence without cause ?

          • rationalobservations?

            “Why is there something rather than nothing ?”

            Nature abhors a vacuum.

          • Woman In White

            What is the origin of Nature ?

          • rationalobservations?

            An apparently entirely natural, magic and gods free singularity event 13,820,000,000 years ago.

            What’s your version and what evidence have you in support of your hypothesis?

          • Woman In White

            An apparently entirely natural … event

            So Nature is its own origin ?

            You are then therefore claiming quite exactly that Reality just spontaneously appeared without cause out of nowhere and from nothing.

          • rationalobservations?

            Nope.
            The singularity event is the origin of everything within our 13,820,000,000 year old still rapidly expanding Universe.

            Do try to keep up and do please attempt to resist the tendency to invent straw man arguments of your own instead af attempting to answer the actual evidence based questions you continually avoid.

          • Woman In White

            Can you explain how a singularity event, proposed BTW by Catholic Priest Fr Georges Lemaître, with a “natural” cause might not be caused by the very Nature that you have claimed as existing since that event ?

            It’s utterly ludicrous.

            What is the origin of Nature ?

    • Mc

      It sounds like you need an intelligent being to re-wire your brain, because you are hearing only what you want to hear. You conflate speculation with belief. If you actually understood what he was saying, you’d realize that he doesn’t believe in intelligent design. Instead, he is speculating on what kick started life, because he says there is no scientific evidence on this. But if you don’t believe me, go ask him on Twitter.

      • sidor

        Do you suggest me to ask him on Twitter if he really believes what he said?

        I am afraid you missed the funny point in that episode, possibly because the problem they discussed happened to be beyond your comprehension. Please accept my condolences.

        • Mc

          Yes, how about asking Dawkins to clarify what he said. In fact, it is interesting in itself that apparently you haven’t done so already. Your incoherent responses and comments suggest that you suffer from a serious logical and probably mental deficiency. So I suspect you would interpret any Dawkins’ comment as confirming your strange pre-conceived notions, rather than actually understanding what he says.

          • sidor

            I wonder if you realised what you wrote: you claim that Dawkins’ statement could only be understood if he explains what he meant in a separate statement. Thereby you suggests that he suffers from a kind of cognitive deficiency which results in him being unable to express himself in a clear, logically consistent and unambiguous manner.

            I have to say frankly: I am not of very high opinion of his intellect, but he is hardly a medical imbecile of the kind you suggest. Try to be fair to the guy.

          • Mc

            Sidor, it is clear to everyone except yourself that you’re completely nuts. An excellent example of your buffoonery is your other comment that Darwinism is “is a stupid 19th century superstition inconsistent with the fundamental principles, which biologists are unaware of due to their lack of basic education.”

            If this were true, the science that produces everything that you use on a daily basis is a fraud. But then, you probably do believe that too.

          • sidor

            I love you too.

            Everything you use daily is produced by virtue of Maxwell’s equations. You think it is a fraud?

          • Mc

            Get yourself an appointment with a psychiatrist.

          • sidor

            Shall I ask for his professional opinion about the reasons of your problems with school physics?

          • Mc

            You’re not making sense.

  • Miss Floribunda Rose

    Poor Mr. Dawkins. The Left have it in for him for daring to criticise the Religion of Peace. The Right have it in for him for……what, exactly? Stridency? By the way, I always get Dawkins and Hawkings confused with one another. I always have to remind myself that one sits in a wheelchair, and the other does not. A final thought: If the wheelchair user is so bleedin’ clever, why hasn’t he yet invented a flying one?

    • rose white

      They are both possessed by demons just as Jesus cast out so in essence both are controlled by demons speaking Satan’s lies so basically Hawk’n’Dawk are identical zombies.

      Hawk could skip out of that wheelchair just by acknowledging God and Jesus but he refuses to so he stays as locked as the John 5:5 account shows: 5 One of the men lying there had been sick for thirty-eight years.6 When Jesus saw him and knew he had been ill for a long time, he asked him,“Would you like to get well?”

      7 “I can’t, sir,” the sick man said, “for I have no one to put me into the pool when the water bubbles up. Someone else always gets there ahead of me.”

      8 Jesus told him, “Stand up, pick up your mat, and walk!”

      That man had been crippled for 38 years! Hawk is now crippled over 40! Isn’t it time he asked someone to have a true Christian bless him so he could cast his wheelchair aside?

      • Sanctimony

        I’m not surprised that your fruitcake fellow-poster is not endorsing your increasingly off-the-wall lunatic ramblings…

  • rose white

    Dawkins is possessed by one the the same demons that Jesus so often cast out when He was on Earth.
    And as he blasphemes God and Holy Spirit, and promotes Satan, and is divorced and fornicating, and lies every time he opens his mouth, and calls God a liar by contradicting Creation with his silly EVONONSENSE he is going to have a really bad interview on Judgement Day.
    So while he is presently living teh full celebrity life of ‘sex,drugs’n’rock’n’roll’ he may regret it when he stands before God.
    Satan loves him for his blasphemies and turning people from God but hates him as a human being.

    • rationalobservations?

      Intellectuals have been pointing to the irrationality of belief in “the gods” since time immemorial, Rose. Atheism is nothing new and flourishes in modern times because education is so much more widespread and no western, developed, democratic nation allows the barbaric institutions of religion to torture and murder those of us who join Albert Einstein in dismissing all religion as “childish superstition”.

      • rose white

        your silly childish talk will get you killed when Jesus returns.

        better repent now and start learning the truth about him and not what you learned fom rubbish tv.

        • rationalobservations?

          Your silly childish religion is in rapid decline and those held in thrall by the evil and anti-humanitarian nonsense your espouse are rapidly dying out without replacement as the millennial generation laugh at your superstitions as much as they laugh at other primitive superstitions.

          I join the growing majority who live blameless, law abiding lives and tick the “no religion/not religious” box in polls and surveys.

          It is no coincidence that the least religious modern democratic nations are the most educated, peaceful, egalitarian and law abiding.

          • Woman In White

            It is not surprising that the rise of atheist values and the all-out assault against Faith in Europe has led to the rise of the most ignorant, violent, oppressive, and destructive generation of evil young European nationals bent on destroying every single one of our common values, which BTW are nothing else than those of the Christian Faith.

          • rose white

            They choose the whisperings of Satan than God’s plain speaking and the evidence of the Bible and every tiny cell in their own bodies.

          • Sanctimony

            Are you posting from Broadmoor ?

          • rationalobservations?

            Odd then that the most peaceful, egalitarian, charitable and democratic lands are also those in which the fewest citizens are in thrall to any religion?

            It appears that non-belief brings peace and prosperity while theocratic totalitarian states are the most dangerous and least law abiding.

          • Sanctimony

            BTW… you need a mega dose of Diocalm….preferably administered in the form of a suppository….

          • Woman In White

            Troll.

          • rose white

            LOL you just dig yourself a deeper grave than that imaginary meteorite you Evos claim killed everything 65mya!

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            There is not, among evolutionary biologists, a catechism about meteorites. Was there a meteorite? Yes, we can see the impact crater. Did it wipe everything out? No, of course not – we’ve still got plants that pre-date this event. Is mass extinction in general a force for selection? No; variance across populations is the most important factor. There might be comic book writers who think the world ended 65MYA, but among scientists only a few eccentrics.

          • rose white

            LOL.
            You worship Darwin when you shoudl be worshipping God.

        • Sanctimony

          Your incomprehensible and infantile mutterings will get you straight into the funny farm of your choice… they’ll have to turn up the voltage in the ECT ward for you though…..

      • Woman In White

        Other intellectuals have been pointing to the rationality of Faith in the Divine since time immemorial, ratty, and to the irrationality of lacking it.

        I also very much doubt that any Christian in here wants to “torture and murder” you, and your suggestion to that effect is grossly objectionable.

        To an atheist all writings tend to atheism: he corrupts the most innocent matter with his own venom. — Montaigne.

        • Sanctimony

          I’m delighted I put you in touch with Montaigne….

          • Woman In White

            You didn’t.

          • Sanctimony

            However high a Woman in White sits, she still sits on her own a…e !

        • rationalobservations?

          “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

          – Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

          • Woman In White

            This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all. . . . The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect . . . and from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. . . . He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. — Isaac Newton

          • rationalobservations?

            Are you writing about Zeus, or is it Brahma?

            Quoting the psychotic genius Issac Newton is always the sign of a lost argument. You do know he believed in Ghosts and Fairies and thought that Alchemy was a viable “science”?

          • Woman In White

            The sign of a lost argument is actually the sort of ad hominem you’ve just used.

            You’ve lost the argument that rationality equals atheism.

          • rationalobservations?

            Nope. No evidence in support of your assertions.

          • sidor

            The entire modern physics is based on that Newton’s “psychosis”. Try to read your school textbook to understand this point.

          • rationalobservations?

            The whole religion of “christianity” that was cobbled together in 4th century Rome is based upon Constantine’s psychosis.

            Try a little research into the pre 4th century evidence for christianity to understand this point.

          • sidor

            Don’t blame Constantine. He wasn’t a Christian.

            Let me correct the defects of your school education concerning the history of monotheism.

            1. It wasn’t in the Roman Empire: it was in Egypt.

            2. It wasn’t 4th century AD: it was 14th century BC.

            3. It wasn’t Constantine: it was Echnaton.

          • rationalobservations?

            What extant, authentic and original evidence of christianity from 1st century CE Egypt?

            What extant, authentic and original evidence of christianity (or of a monotheistic Jewish faith) from 1500 BCE?

            What evidence of christianity prior to Constantine and from within the 1st century CE?

            I have searched for historical evidence of “Yeshua/Jesus” far and wide across the world and researched within many of the world’s greatest libraries and museums. I have found not a single shred of original,1st century originated, extant, authentic, verified and verifiable evidence that supports any of the much, much later written confused and contradictory legends of a god-man/messiah named “Jesus”.

            Every single text that claims to be a “copy” of 1st century texts was written long after the time to which they are fraudulently “backdated” and merely attributed. There is not a shred of evidence that they are not (as they appear to be) the original fiction, not a copy of earlier fiction.

            There exists evidence of several “messiahs” recorded as existing between Circa 4 BCE and Circa 140 CE. There is no trace of any god-man/messiah named “Jesus” or any real Jewish/Hebrew name from which that otherwise meaningless Greek word may have been coined long after the time in which the legends of “Jesus” are set.

            There is no authentic and original 1st century evidence that the god-man (centuries later called “Jesus” by Greek scribes employed by Rome) existed at all.

            No 1st century texts.
            No 1st century artifacts.
            No 1st century archaeology.

            All we have are a diverse and different series of human authored confused and internally contradictory books that first appeared in 4th century Rome – but that have been much altered ever since until the ridiculous, confused and internally contradictory bibles we all know today were written by later teams of religiot authors.

            There isn’t even any historical or archaeological trace of a city called “Nazareth” until the modern Jesus theme-park town was founded in the very late 3rd century at the earliest.

            Your evidenceless assertions appear to be pointless and in no respect validate a single version of the legends of “Jesus” that appeared for the first time in a prototype “bible” hand written by an anonymous team of scribes in the 4th century. (See: “Codex Sinaiticus”)

            Care to make an attempt at answering these evidence based questions?

            1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated evidence of the life and times of one of many messiah claimants (only much later Greek scribes employed by the 4th century Romans) named “Jesus”?

            2) Can you name a complete bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus christian bible and matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus?

            3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

            4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian bibles today?

            5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

            6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within NT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within the Torah and other Jewish literature and tradition?

            I have asked these questions many times and within many different comment columns. I do not get annoyed when the response is mere blanket denial, dishonest straw man non-argument, ad hominem or a barrage of recycled propaganda and long debunked bunkum.

            I wonder if you will surprise me (and any readers still following this column) with something based upon a little more logic, common sense and (most of all) – authentic original, verifies and verifiable 1st century originated evidence.

          • Woman In White

            I have found not a single shred of original,1st century originated, extant, authentic, verified and verifiable evidence

            You can easily blindfold yourself to the reports of History by assuming that every extant 1st century text is false.

            NEWSFLASH : that attitude is the exact opposite of scientific.

          • rationalobservations?

            No.
            I assert that there are no original, authentic, extant 1st century originated texts.

            Please inform me if you know of any?

          • rationalobservations?

            I do not assume that any extant original 1st century originated text is false.

            I merely observe that there is complete, total and absolute historical silence regarding the legendary “Jesus” from the 1st century and that the very first/oldest complete texts did not appear until the end of the 4th century. It is also clear that those prototype xtian texts have been much altered, edited, re-written, added to and deleted from in the centuries from the 4th century onward.

            Once again; do you care to make an attempt at answering these evidence based questions with authentic evidence supported answers?

            1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated evidence of the life and times of one of many messiah claimants (only much later Greek scribes employed by the 4th century Romans) named “Jesus”?

            2) Can you name a complete bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus christian bible and matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus?

            3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

            4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian bibles today?

            5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

            6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within NT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within the Torah and other Jewish literature and tradition?

          • Woman In White

            Constantine wasn’t a Christian

            Do you have a quota of false statements to post daily ?

          • sidor

            Why don’t you read Wikipedia?

            Perhaps the most momentous conversion in Western history was that ofConstantine I, Roman Emperor and later proclaimed a Christian Saint. While his belief in Christianity occurred long before his death, it was only on his deathbed that he was baptised, in 337.

            So, he wasn’t Christian until his death. I expect your apology.

          • Woman In White

            In other words, by your own admission he was a Christian, baptised in 337.

          • rationalobservations?

            It’s technically true. For most of his life and even after he decreed that christianity should be cobbled together, moved the “Sabbath” to Sun(god)day and arranged for the first NT xtian bible to be hand written by Greek scribes – he remained hedging his bets. It’s rumoured that he adopted the then new fangled cult of christianity on his death bed – but the accretion of 1600 years of fraud, mythology, legend and forgery and the almost industrial scale fabrication of fake texts and artifacts between the 10th and 15th centuries – who knows what (if anything) could have been the basis of the mostly pagan religion of Roman “christianity”?

          • rose white

            Hi you and I are wasting our time with irrationalblindness… he like Dawkins has sold his soul to Satan

          • rationalobservations?

            Like most of the non-believers who now form the growing majority of citizens within the free, peaceful, law abiding and democratic developed world – I live a blameless, peaceful, charitable and humanitarian life of love for my family, friends and mankind in general.

            It’s just a shame that the rump of barbarian religiots still try to ruin the civilisation that has been so hard won.

          • sidor

            To Santa.

          • Sanctimony

            You are in great company, rose white… we now have you and the virago banshee fount of all knowledge and all we need now is another monster raving looney religious fanatic and we will have the complete set of Gorgons or the coven for the next production of Macbeth at the Old Vic….

          • sidor

            Nice that you praise Newton’s arian faith. He was lucky that he lived after Cromwell’s revolution. The Catholic Church would have definitely burned him as a dangerous heretic.

          • Woman In White

            Odd that you praise the genocidal Cromwell and simultaneously accuse the Church of his preferred manner of religious hatred.

            I also did NOT “praise” his arianist/modernist beliefs.

            The Catholic Church never at any point sought to have him “burned as a heretic”, contrary to your 100% evidence-free claim.

          • sidor

            When we discuss the moral value of a historical figure, it should be judged by the result, not by the methods. No matter how many pagan Catholics Cromwell neutralised, the result was worth it: he provided Newton’s existence. In this way Cromwell has accomplished his Godly mission.

          • Woman In White

            No matter how many pagan Catholics Cromwell neutralised, the result was worth it

            Do you understand that the apology of religious terrorism is a criminal offence ?

            I am UTTERLY DISGUSTED and HORRIFIED by your justification of religious violence.

            You are no better than the ISIS scumbags who took automatic weaponry to a rock concert.

            Can a UK resident please report this individual to the Police ?

          • sidor

            You did it many times when justified the atrocities of the Catholic Church. Be easy.

            But you failed to explain your viewpoint: don’t you think that the huge progress in science and technology resulted from Reformation justifies the atrocities of the religious wars?

          • Woman In White

            You are a liar.

            The atrocities perpetrated by the combined efforts of Al Qaeda and ISIS pale in comparison to those committed by Cromwell against his 600,000 victims.

          • sidor

            Try to prove it by condemning the outrages of Inquisition and the genocide of the French Huguenots. I am waiting.

          • Woman In White

            The Inquisitions were the origin of the modern Court system — there was no “genocide” of the Huguenots, as demonstrated incontrovertibly by the war that ensued, there was a war crime committed against some of them.

            600,000 victims is on a scale not equalled in Europe until World War I.

          • sidor

            Cromwell is, according to the British public, among 10 greatest Britons. Your comparing this great man with ISIS is an insult to the British people.

          • Woman In White

            You simply demonstrate the existence of collective ignorance.

            He was a genocidal monster.

          • sidor

            Wrong terminology: it was deratisation, not genocide. A Godly action.

          • Sanctimony

            Whereas you are quite simply a monster….

          • Sanctimony

            Might I report this woman as a lunatic on the loose and would everyone please sponsor her return to Broadmoor….

          • Sanctimony

            Why, can’t you manage that from your lofty perch in Bedlam ?… I suppose your straitjacket constricts you a bit….

          • Sanctimony

            Of course they didn’t, you ignoramus…. Catholicism was virtually non-existent in Newton’s time… so very little chance of them torching him at the Tower of London….

          • Woman In White

            Catholicism was virtually non-existent in Newton’s time

            I’m sure that not only Popes Urban VIII, Innocent X, Alexander VII, Clement IX, Clement X, Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, Innocent XII, Clement XI, Innocent XII, and Benedict XIII would be surprised by your outrageously contrafactual claim, but also that accusations of “ignorance” are liable to be scoffed and scorned at when those who propose them include untenable claims in their very formulation.

            FYI nobody ever burned Galileo as a heretic either.

          • rationalobservations?

            Poor old Galileo was shown the instruments of torture he would face if he chose not to lie about the true nature of the solar system. He survived in house arrest for the final 10 years of his life.

            A Generation before Galileo, Giordano Bruno was not so “lucky” and had a red hot spike driven through his tongue and was slowly burned to death for the same discovery that proved the Earth revolves around the Sun and is not the centre of the universe.

            Worth noting also that a giant oil painting within the Vatican museum commemorates the execution by hanging of all of Galileo’s assistants and students on the instructions of the then Pope.

            The brutal imposition of christianity in the 4th century., 9 crusades (10 if you count the 20th century catholic crusade of the 3rd reich) followed by centuries of terror, torture, oppression and inquisition – may indicate the blood soaked history of the catholicism and the xtian religion?

          • Woman In White

            Poor old Galileo was shown the instruments of torture he would face if he chose not to lie about the true nature of the solar system

            This mendacious mythology is utterly disgusting.

            The discovery of the true nature of the solar system was made by Father Copernicus, a Catholic Priest.

            His research was directly funded and supported by the Church.

            Galileo’s own theory of heliocentrism is factually incorrect — the Sun is NOT the centre of the Universe.

            His research was directly funded and supported by the Church.

            Galileo was punished for reasons having exactly nothing to do with geocentrism; and everything to do with his completely unnecessary decision to act like a complete a*se-hole toward his funders.

          • sidor

            Tell us about Galileo’s outrages. Did he sexually assault a Vatican’s cardinal? Or personally the Pope? Farted during the Mass?

          • Woman In White

            They had NOTHING to do with his scientific theories.

            They had everything to do with his mindlessly destructive efforts to insult those who had paid him for his work ; the Pope and Bishops of the Holy See.

          • sidor

            Details please. Was it physical insult of the Pope?

          • rationalobservations?

            That’s not what transcripts from the trial of Galileo reveal:

            “But to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false.”

            Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the foremost Vatican theologian of the seventeeth century.

            “Facts which at first sight seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which had hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.”

            Galileo

            “Freedom of belief is pernicious. It is nothing but the freedom to be wrong.”

            Cardinal Bellarmine

            “The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.”

            Formal Church declaration in its indictment of Galileo

            To which Galileo replied:

            “The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.”

            “To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”

            Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615

            “One Galileo in two thousand years is enough.”

            Pope Pius XII

            “Because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center and immovable, …I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies…contrary to the said Holy Church.”

            Galileo Galilei, recanting under threat of torture and death by the Holy Church, June 22, 1633

          • sidor

            God bless Cromwell who cleaned the country of this plague.

          • rationalobservations?

            And thank goodness for the advent of free, secular democracy that cleaned the country out of the brutal totalitarian tyrannical theocracy of religion.

            Only the last vestiges of corrupt religion left now while civilisation advances all across the western world and battles with the remaining brutal totalitarian theocracies of the “developing” world.

          • Woman In White

            Joseph Stalin cleaned his country out of 20 million by killing all of them.

            Meanwhile every totalitarian régime of the 20th century was founded on atheist principles.

            PS you are an idiotic ignoramus, Ratty.

          • Sanctimony

            Complete and utter bulls..t… He was trashed by the absolutely corrupt Papacy and the legacy of the Inquisition which suppressed all forms of learning and self-reason…. you are one of the most obvious results of this suppression and you manifest it by the minute on this blog….

            I can remember less than 40 years ago when all our books at school were checked by the Jesuits to ensure that they were not on the ‘list’…. I remember one other fellow schoolboy presenting his tome of the latest Jesuit hero, Edmund Campion, for inspection and, upon opening it, a copy of the latest Playboy girlie mag fell out….

            He received the most savage penalty; ‘twice nine’, available to the Jesuits of the day… delivered with their fearsome ferula…. check out James Joyce for more background…

          • rationalobservations?

            The mendacious and dishonest mythology of your fraudulent religion is the most utterly disgusting thing around here.

            The real history reveals just how disgusting your death cult was and is.

            Your recycled propaganda is contradicted by the evidence.

            Who ever suggested that the sun is the centre of the universe. Merely the center of the solar system contrary to Psalms 104:5

          • Woman In White

            The real history reveals

            … your inability to comprehend factuality.

          • Sanctimony

            Does everything in your pea-sized brain end in …’ity’ ?

            Causality, factuality, irrationality… you bore us, you polysyllabic old boot, and your inane pontifications and pronouncements would would shame the inmates of a suburban budgerigar cage…..

          • Woman In White

            Troll.

          • rationalobservations?

            I prefer hard incontrovertible evidence for my facts. You appear to prefer myths, legends and propaganda??

          • Woman In White

            The notable lack of “hard incontrovertible evidence” that I might belong to a “death cult” has not escaped one’s notice of your blinkered and indoctrinated partiality.

          • rationalobservations?

            From the mythical obliteration of all life outside of the content of a little wooden boat to through 9 genocidal crusades and 300+ years of terror and torture in inquisitions and so very much more death and destruction plus the ideology that this life is merely a test for an afterlife of eternal torment or eternal bliss., what else would you call christianity but a death cult?

            Few Christians will admit it because few Christians even recognise it, but they are members of a Death Cult; a degenerate, death-anxious, exclusively fatalistic religion that has since the “Hammer of the Arians” (Bishop Hilary of Poitiers) predicted the mass liquidation of all earthly species in 365 CE produced a continuous supply of socially derelict luminaries who’ve longed for nothing short of the total and complete annihilation of our home world. Now, granted, like an awkward uncle it’s something most liberal churches try not to bellow about from the pulpit, but let there be no doubt, Christianity (like Judaism and Islam) is an anticipatory religion; a sect almost wholly fixated on the expectations (and apprehension) of a single and supposedly inescapable future event: the apocalypse detailed in John’s Revelation where all but “saved” Christians (perhaps as few as 144,000) will be butchered by the Middle Eastern Christian god “Yahweh”…. and it’s a bloodbath many Christian captains have been (and still are today) simply giddy with pleasurable anticipation about.

            Just a decade after Bishop Hilary’s fatalistic proclamation Martin of Tours pronounced that the heavenly holocaust was at hand (375 CE). For the trireme of morose hopelessness embodied in Hippolytus of Rome, Sextus Julius Africanus and Saint Irenaeus it was 500 CE when the Christian god was going to obliterate everything from toddlers to tea leaves. For the Spanish monk, Beatus of Liébana, it was the 6th of April 793. Pope Sylvester II and Cardinal John of Toledo named 1186 as the year the Christian god was going commit its radiant genocide. Joachim of Fiore fingered 1260, then 1290 and finally 1335. 1284 was the date for the glorious massacre according to Pope Innocent III, 1378 for Arnaldus de Villa Nova, the 20th of February 1524 for Johannes Stöffler (later revised up to 1528), and the 27th of May 1528 for the Anabaptist, Hans Hut, who apart from getting his prediction of the end of the world horribly wrong holds the rather unusual distinction of being perhaps the only person in history to be executed a day after in fact dying. The mathematician and monk, Michael Stifel, was quite specific saying 500 million innocent men, women and children, together with millions of equally innocent species would be willfully put to death at precisely 8am on the 19th October 1533. For Jan Matthys it was 1534, 1555 for Pierre d’Ailly, 1585 for Michael Servetus, and 1600 when Martin Luther hoped the earth would be destroyed in a cataclysmic blast of resplendent carnage. 1794 was the year the Methodist, Charles Wesley, was certain god was going to wreak heavenly havoc on all creatures. His brother, John, fingered 1836, but for the Jehovah Witnesses 1914 was the year they were positively convinced the world would be put to the saintly torch. When it didn’t they simply dusted themselves off, pulled up their socks, and went on to name 1915, then 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, and finally 1994 as sequentially erroneous dates for their Christian god to commit its rapturous mass murder. The Baptist minister, William Miller, was sure our world would be blissfully annihilated on the 21st of March 1843; a date amended on the 22nd of March to the 18th of April, only to be revised again on the 19th to the 22nd of October 1844, which came and went without as much as a godly sneeze. The Methodist, Joanna Southcott, was certain her Christian god would annihilate everything on the 19thof October 1814, and Joseph Smith got his prediction of the end of the world fabulously wrong when 1891 passed to 1892 and children were still playing under the sun. For Jim Jones it was 1967. Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God wanted it all to end in 1936, then 1943, and finally 1975. Leland Jensen thought 1980, Pastor Chuck Smith named 1981, and television evangelist, Pat Robertson, was no doubt left scratching his head when his god failed to blow our home planet and everything on it to smithereens in 1982. Tara Centers was so confident the Christian god was poised to extinguish all life that she took out full page ads in newspapers on the 24th and 25th of April 1982 announcing that “The Christ is Now Here!” Edgar C. Whisenant got it wrong in 1988 but did sell 5 million copies of his book 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988. He revised the date to 1989, then 1993, and finally 1994, but didn’t sell as many books the second, third and fourth times around. 1993 was the date for our planets dazzling demise according to the Disciples of Christ, David Berg, and after getting it wrong in 1988 and then again in 1999 the World Mission Society Church of God was certain 2012 was in fact the year their god was going to end it all. For the Christian radio broadcaster, Harold Camping, it was 6am on the 21st of May 2011 (a date later updated to the 21st of October), for Ronald Weinland of the Church of God it was May 27th 2012, June 30th for José Luis de Jesús of the Growing In Grace International Ministry (Inc.), and for Warren Jeffs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints it was the 23rd of December 2012 (a date amended a few days later to the 31st of December) for when the Middle Eastern Christian god was going to commence its enchanted bloodbath and extinguish all terrestrial life.

            Have you any rational defense against the evidence that all brands and businesses of christianity are by definition “death cults”.

          • Sanctimony

            completely unnecessary decision to act like a complete a*se-hole…… so you are claiming that you and Galileo had much in common….

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            But as to heliocentrism, Galileo did not differ from Copernicus. They were as right (or as wrong) about this as each other. Galileo’s importance is observational; he had a telescope, as Copernicus did not. Neither can be blamed for the idea that the sun is at the centre of everything; science is not a matter of being right for all time. As far as I know heliocentrism was questioned for the first time by Herschel in the 1780s, and not accepted for decades afterwards. Even post-Newton, it is often assumed that the sun is stationary, and a ‘point mass’ occupying no volume, to simplify the calculations.

          • Woman In White

            But as to heliocentrism, Galileo did not differ from Copernicus

            An interesting question in itself — but Father Copernicus proposed it as a theory ; Galileo wrongfully proposed it as an incontrovertible fact, even though contrary evidence existed at the time. (and still exists for that matter — we’re all hurtling about the centre of the planet at considerable speed, even though most direct evidence appears to suggest nothing of the sort) ; and ultimately, his explanation of observable phenomena is not correct — the Sun is not the centre of the Universe.

            Father Copernicus refrained from taking that position, suggesting merely that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the reverse, but more to the actual point of where Galileo failed, Fr Copernicus presented his findings as a theory, according to the scientific expectations of the methodology as it existed at the time, whereas Galileo decided to arbitrarily dismiss all contrary theory as being false.

            Anyone acting today as Galileo did would likely lose his academic position, quite apart from the criminal nature of his breaches of contract.

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            It’s a robust knockabout position, but completely anachronistic. I don’t need to tell you that Galileo was not a tenured professor of astronomy, AND that the concept of a universe in the modern sense (with island galaxies each composed of billions of stars) did not exist. Today, scientists put forward ideas that are mostly wrong, and which coexist with other plausible accounts; this is how science advances – no-one gets sacked for it. The work of Galileo and Kepler in popularising heliocentrism was a great step forward; for one thing, it promoted the geometry of elliptical orbits and realistic calculations of the moon’s distance. To the extent that their ideas were wrong (copernican astronomy was no better at predicting eclipses, for example) their opponents’ ideas were even more wrong. Even the notion of a scientific method took hold only centuries later; much science before 1800 was speculative and made simplifying assumptions, including Newton’s laws of motion. No experimental philosopher in 1630 held to incontrovertible truths – they left those to the doctors of theology.

          • Woman In White

            The fact that the modern scientific method did not exist in those times does not mean that the scientists of the period had no accepted methodology.

            They did, and it was based on the Pro et Contra hermeneutics of their basic intellectual method.

            Today, scientists put forward ideas that are mostly wrong, and which coexist with other plausible accounts; this is how science advances – no-one gets sacked for it

            The scientists of the earlier period proceeded no differently, but access to publication was necessarily more restrictive, because the use of either manual copyists or the early printing presses was not only costly, but it required the agreement of the men who controlled those resources.

            The methodology of the period required a scientist to present Pro et Contra a discussion of the existing opposed theories on the topic in question, and then to present his own views or discoveries in relation to those contents.

            No experimental philosopher in 1630 held to incontrovertible truths

            The methodological error of Galileo is that he did exactly that.

          • rationalobservations?

            The reports from the trial of Galileo confound your recycled and dishonest propaganda:

            “But to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false.”

            Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the foremost Vatican theologian of the seventeeth century.

            “Facts which at first sight seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which had hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.”

            Galileo

            “Freedom of belief is pernicious. It is nothing but the freedom to be wrong.”

            Cardinal Bellarmine

            “The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.”

            Formal Church declaration in its indictment of Galileo

            To which Galileo replied:

            “The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.”

            “To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”

            Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo, 1615

            “One Galileo in two thousand years is enough.”

            Pope Pius XII

            “Because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, to abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the center and immovable, …I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies…contrary to the said Holy Church.”

            Galileo Galilei, recanting under threat of torture and death by the Holy Church, June 22, 1633

          • Woman In White

            You confuse accusations by individuals with Church doctrine.

            Meanwhile, the statement that “the Sun is the centre and immovable” of the Universe is factually and scientifically incorrect.

            Only an ignorant could hail such a statement as a triumph of knowledge.

          • rationalobservations?

            That’s similar to what the inquisitors said to Galileo before they terrified him into lying about the deception within bibles.

          • Woman In White

            the 20th century catholic crusade of the 3rd reich

            ?????!!!!???!!?!??

            cripes, Ratty, you’re a complete joke

          • Sanctimony

            No, you are most definitely the Victrix Ludorum in that department….

          • rationalobservations?

            Adolf Hitler: As a Christian, I Feel that My Lord and Savior was a Fighter

            “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. …Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. …”

            – Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

            https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=945&q=gott+mit+uns+belt+buckle&oq=Gott+mit&gs_l=img.1.1.0l10.1851.3574.0.6338.8.8.0.0.0.0.255.928.0j3j2.5.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..3.5.924.TeSq7ayuMto

          • Woman In White

            Regardless of the horror that anyone sensible must feel at capital punishment, Giordano Bruno was not in fact condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds.

            Having already been excommunicated, he was punished for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, and so on and so forth.

            The excommunication was very blatantly the more proper and more appropriate penalty.

          • rationalobservations?

            Independent evidence contradicts your recycled propaganda.

          • Woman In White

            The “propaganda” that the death penalty is barbaric and needs to be universally abolished ?

            (no matter how radical Protestants like “pobjoy” one might seek to “justify” the brutal genocidal crimes against up to 600,000 Catholics during Cromwell’s campaign of State terrorism, nor the 20,000,000 who died during Stalin’s atheist régime)

          • rationalobservations?

            On February 16, 1600, the Roman Catholic Church executed Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher and scientist, for the crime of heresy. He was taken from his cell in the early hours of the morning to the Piazza dei Fiori in Rome and burnt alive at the stake. To the last, the Church authorities were fearful of the ideas of a man who was known throughout Europe as a bold and brilliant thinker. In a peculiar twist to the gruesome affair, the executioners were ordered to tie his tongue so that he would be unable to address those gathered. The executioners are reported to have pierced his tongue with a red hot spike to ensure his silence.

            Throughout his life Bruno championed the Copernican system of astronomy which placed the sun, not the Earth, at the centre of the solar system. He opposed the stultifying authority of the Church and refused to recant his philosophical beliefs throughout his eight years of imprisonment by the Venetian and Roman Inquisitions. His life stands as a testimony to the drive for knowledge and truth that marked the astonishing period of history known as the Renaissance—from which so much in modern art, thought and science derives.

            In 1992, after 12 years of deliberations, the Roman Catholic Church grudgingly admitted that Galileo Galilei had been right in supporting the theories of Copernicus. The Holy Inquisition had forced an aged Galileo to recant his ideas under threat of torture in 1633. But no such admission has been made in the case of Bruno. His writings are still on the Vatican’s list of forbidden texts.

          • Woman In White

            Funny how Newton was a “psychotic”, but Bruno a “bold and brilliant thinker”.

            for the crime of heresy

            in other words, NOT for science.

            the Copernican system of astronomy

            … devised by Father Copernicus, a Catholic Priest.

            His writings are still on the Vatican’s list of forbidden texts

            No such list is extant, you ignorant fool.

            His life stands as a testimony to the drive for knowledge and truth

            It stands as a monument to the rejection of scientific methodology, the rejection of ordinary peer review, and lunatic theories about magic and alchemy.

          • Sanctimony

            Oh… you also have a compendium of ‘ogys’ to go with all your other much repeated platitudes… you are seriously the most laughable and ludicrous character I have ever encountered on the internet….

            Whenever a serious topic rears its head your snorkel goes up for air, inhales deep gulps of propaganda, nonsense and didactic Catholic doctrine which you spew forth like a blue whale on a bad krill day.

            I do hope that some day soon your ‘asms’ improve and that you are able to release all those frustrations and enable you to regain a less Tourettes driven frustration…

          • Woman In White

            Idiot.

          • Sanctimony

            What an utterly stupid and vapid response…. I meant, of course, as any thinking or rational person would have surmised, that Catholicism in Newton’s time was virtually non-existent in England…

          • Sanctimony

            FYI & BTW… I never mentioned Galileo, you muddle-headed, arrogant old windbag…

          • Woman In White

            You clearly have difficulty comprehending even the clearest of comparisons.

            You claimed that Newton would have been at risk of being “burned as a heretic” in a Catholic environment ; and yet in similar circumstances and in a Catholic environment, Galileo was NOT.

          • Sanctimony

            Happy to have referred you to Newton…. before that you probably imagined he was an antipodean tennis player….

          • Woman In White

            Your happiness is undoubtedly a symptom of hypoxia — you should come down from your altitudinous be-anorak’d heights of “superiority”, lest you suffocate.

          • Sanctimony

            And you should stick that machine gun you are holding into your great, guppy cake-hole and pull the trigger….

          • Woman In White

            You’re clinically insane, aren’t you. How sad.

          • sidor

            Seneca was a Latin pagan. Intellectual garbage. Read Plato.

          • rationalobservations?
          • sidor

            Thanks for the quotation. A perfect manifestation of paganism written by a person unable to comprehend the concept of transcendental God, like yourself. A simple popular form of this idiotic paradox: can God create a stone that he will be unable to move?

            Read Plato.

          • rationalobservations?
          • Woman In White

            Those words were not written by Plato, nor uttered by Socrates, and I reject the analyses that have produced them as being flawed.

          • rationalobservations?

            Reject away.

            Denial is never considered to be rebuttal.

            In the meantime: The rest of us will continue to reject all the childish superstitions of religion in ever more rapidly growing numbers.

          • Woman In White

            Denial is never considered to be rebuttal

            Complete fabrications falsely purporting to be examples of the thought of Plato and Socrates are never considered to be relevant to anything whatsoever.

          • Woman In White

            Translation error — it should be “Zeus” in those words, not God.

          • rationalobservations?

            Is Zeus not a “god”? Whole populations worshiped him with all the devotion shown by those devoted to later/lesser imaginary gods.

            Christians are often baffled as to how atheists could deny the existence of their god, “Yahweh” and their god-man Yeshua/”Jesus”. But they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do.

            Some of my favorites? Pratibhanapratisamvit, Buddhist goddess of context analysis. Or Acat, Mayan god of tattoo artists. Or Tsa’qamae, north american god of salmon migration.

            There is 99.9999999999999999r% similarity between the gods Christians deny and the gods atheists deny. We’re not so different, after all. Let us celebrate our vast agreement with Epicurus regarding the non-existence of all those many, many thousands of gods!

          • Woman In White

            Is Zeus not a “god”?

            No.

            Neither you, nor me, nor Epicurus think he was.

            You have therefore proven nothing.

            Atheists just deny one more god than Christians do.

            That is just some tedious sophistry, having no meaning nor relevance.

          • rationalobservations?

            Yours appears to be ” just some tedious sophistry, having no meaning nor relevance.

            Opinion is not evidence.

            Denial is not refutation.

            Egomania and delusions are curable.

          • Woman In White

            Opinion is not evidence

            Indeed not, Ratty, none of your opinions constitute evidence.

          • Sanctimony

            F… me…

            You really are the fount of all wisdom, aren’t you…. you are a social inadequate and an intellectual pygmy, who comes on here to assuage your inferiority complexes (multitudinous) and hector an audience who can only respond in print rather than absolutely savaging you in a one on one open debate….

            You are, quite simply, a manifestly inadequate gibbering idiot with a cache of quadrasyllabic ‘isms’, ‘itys, ‘ences’, and ‘ions’ …

            Just p… off… dream up, say Greta Garbo or Rock Hudson, and have a fulfilling Jodrell Bank …. just stop pontificating….

          • Woman In White

            You have spent several YEARS engaging in trolling, and during that time you have otherwise demonstrated that apart from your obviously pathological desire to throw insults at Catholics, there is little more than blinkered and ignorant shallowness to back up your prejudiced views.

            As such, the contents of your typing contain nothing of any real value whatsoever.

          • Sanctimony

            I never realised that you go through other peoples’ blog histories with fine tooth comb… you are a serious saddo…

          • Sanctimony

            Quite right… he was father and king of the gods…. no matter what that old bat with the universe’s most cavernous gob and pea-sized brain says….

          • Sanctimony

            Oh what an exquisite, nit-picking, self-righteous, loud-mouthed old bat you are!

          • rationalobservations?

            Yes indeed!
            She never answers a single question and could split a hair into many parts without ever addressing a single issue or single fact that damns the evil death cult she denies is a death cult.

      • rose white

        LOL The mark of an intellectual is pretentious talk – not hard facts.

        Grow up.

        • rationalobservations?

          Irony?

          ROFL

      • rose white

        God gave humans selfcleaning anuses as toilet paper factories and mass forestry is not part of His plan.

        • rationalobservations?

          WTF??

    • sidor

      Dawkins believes in Maxwell’s Demon known as Darwin’s theory. All Darwinists do.

      Do you believe in demons? And in angels? And in Santa?

      • rose white

        grow up and stop believing you is evolved from a monkey.

        • rationalobservations?

          Grow up and quit imagining that anyone with moderate education imagines that our species evolved from monkeys.

          • Woman In White

            Grow up, and stop mistaking sarcasm for theory.

          • rose white

            LOL THese Evos is saddos?
            Just watched a bit of prog on dinosaurs and lo and behold ‘they died out 94 mya when Africa dried out.!’

            Hans Christain Anderson will be turning in his grave at the mass market for fiction that he missed?

          • Woman In White

            I cannot agree with your Young Earth Creationism.

            Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both proposed an explanation of evolution that is consistent not only with good Christian Faith, but also directly relevant to certain hard-to-accept odd notions of the more radically atheistic theories of evolution.

            Saint Augustine reminded us that just as the tree grows from the seed, so the man grows from his insemination by his parents — Augustine understood, with great clarity, that all of our physical being is defined by the seed of our conception — though he had not the instruments to see just how microscopically true his Science was.

            Aquinas went beyond that insight, and realised that the shifts and changes from one generation to the next were also contained in that seed, and that they were present in the very seed of ancient ancestry.

            But he also understood that our form is not haphazard, because it is from our ancestry, and from our Creator not bound by Time, and just as the existence of the tree requires the seed, so does the existence of the man also require the seed — so that the Creation of Life is very centrally the Creation of its Generation.

            Logically then, assuming Faith, Evolution must be directed towards the final Forms, just as our lives are directed towards our Salvation.

            And so, the Creation of Man in His Image was the Creation of our Ancestry.

            Just as the seed includes the tree, following Aquinas, and Augustine, so our Communion with the Church of the Christ includes our Baptism and our Salvation, so our physical life is the medium between our ancestry and our God-given destiny.

          • rose white

            Oh you do disappoint me!

            You wrote your own EVONONSENSE novella!

          • rose white

            actually God says ‘the trees came out of the earth bearing fruit – so no seeds needed to say otherwise is Satanic lies and blasphemy.

            But what’s that to you?

          • rationalobservations?

            Where did “god” say these things and what is the non-biblical (i.e., not apparently fictional) evidence that supports the fact that “god” or “gods” or god-men”messiahs” ever said anything to anyone?

          • Sanctimony

            Yeh…. when me an’ me mate, Dave, share a spliff down the Dog and Duck dahn the Fulham Road we offen see dese trees comin’ aht the pavement… all pink like … an’ me mate, Dave say… dahn touch em man… deyse de works of Satan…

            RESPECT !!!!!!!!!!

          • rose white

            childishness no doubt has its place in Fulham.

          • rationalobservations?

            Do you have any actual first hand original and authentic evidence of anything that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas may have said or written? All I can find is a collection of diverse and different texts written by anonymous scribes many centuries after the lifetime of those to whom these forged writings are merely attributed.

            There is no authentic and original 1st century originated evidence that the god-man (centuries later called “Jesus” by Greek scribes employed by Rome) existed at all.

            No 1st century texts.
            No 1st century artifacts.
            No 1st century archaeology.

            All we have are a diverse and different series of human authored confused and internally contradictory books that first appeared in 4th century Rome – but that have been much altered ever since until the ridiculous, confused and internally contradictory bibles we all know today were written by later teams of religiot authors.

            There isn’t even any historical or archaeological trace of a city called “Nazareth” until the modern Jesus theme-park town was founded in the very late 3rd century at the earliest.

            Your evidenceless assertions appear to be pointless and in no respect validate a single version of the legends of “Jesus” that appeared for the first time in a prototype “bible” hand written by an anonymous team of scribes in the 4th century. (See: “Codex Sinaiticus”)

            Care to at least make some attempt at answering these evidence based questions?

            1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated evidence of the life and times of one of many messiah claimants (only much later Greek scribes employed by the 4th century Romans) named “Jesus”?

            2) Can you name a complete bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus christian bible and matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus?

            3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

            4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian bibles today?

            5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

            6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within NT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within the Torah and other Jewish literature and tradition?

            I have asked these questions many times and within many different comment columns. I do not get annoyed when the response is mere blanket denial, dishonest straw man non-argument, ad hominem or a barrage of recycled propaganda and long debunked bunkum.

            I wonder if you will surprise me (and any readers still following this column) with something based upon a little more logic, common sense and (most of all) – authentic original, verifies and verifiable 1st century originated evidence.

          • Woman In White

            All I can find is a collection of diverse and different texts written by anonymous scribes many centuries after the lifetime of those to whom these forged writings are merely attributed

            It’s hardly my fault if your blinkered a priori bigotry leads you to automatically dismiss anything and everything that disagrees with your indoctrinated views.

            You cannot however expect anyone rational to waste time treating you like a serious interlocutor.

            There isn’t even any historical or archaeological trace of a city called “Nazareth”

            This statement is as factually incorrect as the entire contents of your pseudo-philology.

          • rationalobservations?

            You write: “It’s hardly my fault if your blinkered a priori bigotry leads you to automatically dismiss anything and everything that disagrees with your indoctrinated views.”

            What “indoctrinated views”??

            I write my conclusions based upon a long lifetime of research and the evidence that is the product of that research. I asked evidence based questions based upon researched evidence – but never get any evidence based answers.

            Please present the 1st century evidence of the existence of a City called “Nazareth” rather than present ill informed assumptions that are not supported by a single shred of evidence.

            The Gospels tell us that Jesus’s home town was the ‘City of Nazareth’ (‘polis Natzoree’):

            And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
            (Luke1.26,27)

            And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
            (Luke 2.3,4)

            But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
            (Matthew 2.22,23)

            And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
            (Luke 2.39,40)

            The “gospels” that first appear in 4th century Rome do not tell us much about this “city” of “Nazareth” – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC’s famous “prophet rejected in his own land” quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of non-historical nonsense called the Bible.

            Apart from the confused and internally contradictory content of bibles from the 4th century onward – no other source confirms that City (or any town or village) even existed in the 1st century AD.

            Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any ‘Nazareth’ from its list.

            The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

            According to all the several hundred assorted and much later written letters attributed to “St Paul” – he knows nothing of ‘Nazareth’. Rabbi Solly’s epistles (real and fake) mention “Jesus” 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

            Not one single ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

            Rather than go once again into your habitual mode of auto-denial., how about (for once!) doing a little research, ignoring all unsupported propaganda and giving your best excuse for the apparent late 3rd century founding of the modern “Jeebus theme park” town of Nazareth??

          • Woman In White

            a long lifetime of research

            What a sad waste.

            Please present the 1st century evidence of the existence of a City called “Nazareth”

            If your “research” were even vaguely interested in archaeological evidence (instead of being subjected to your willful ignorance), you’d know of the findings demonstrating the existence of Nazareth 2000 years ago, including its Roman Baths, and its Roman garrison.

            You also appear to be entirely and blameworthily ignorant of the meaning of the word “city” in that same period.

            The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

            So what ?

            Do you *honestly* think that only 63 major settlements existed in Palestine ?

            If you do, then you’re more stupid than I realised.

          • rationalobservations?

            The world has been blessed by the fact that excavation at Nazareth has been conducted by Catholic archaeologists. In an earlier age they may well have “found” sandals neatly inscribed with “property of Jesus Christ”. As it is, they diligently extract every last drop of sanctity from some pretty meagre findings. Yet for all their creative interpretations even the Franciscans cannot disguise the fact that the lack of evidence for a pre-Jesus village at the Nazareth site is virtually total.

            Not that the Franciscans have lacked the opportunity to find what they want to find; they have, in fact, been in Palestine for several centuries, official custodians of the ‘Holy Land’ as a result of Papal Bulls ‘Gratias agimus’ and ‘Nuper charissimae’ issued by Clement VI in 1342.

            During the Crusaders’ wars, Nazareth had changed hands several times. At one point (1099) the Norman-Sicilian adventurer Tancred had set up a ‘principality of Galilee’ with Nazareth as his capital. But the Christians were repeatedly kicked out until finally, in 1263, Nazareth was completely devastated by Sultan Baibars and the whole area left desolate for nearly 400 years.

            The Franciscans got back into the area under a deal with Fakhr ad-Din II, emir of Lebanon, in 1620. They reoccupied the remains of the crusader fort but found Greek monks still in possession of ‘Mary’s Well’ . With funds flowing in they took over the town administration and in 1730 built a church over the Grotto. The demolition of this structure in 1955 paved the way for ‘professional’ archaeology, and the ‘discovery’ of the Biblical Nazareth in the very grounds of the Church itself!

          • Woman In White

            The world has been blessed by the fact that excavation at Nazareth has been conducted by Catholic archaeologists

            A directly false statement, they are Israeli Jews.

            The rest of your cut’n’paste irrelevant blathering is of no relevance whatsoever.

          • rationalobservations?

            Once again you prove merely that denial is not a river in Egypt.

            Catholic archaeologists #1 1955-1960 Excavations conducted by Father Bellarmino Bagatti (Professor, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum at Flagellation, Jerusalem). Beneath his own church and adjoining land, Bagatti discovered numerous caves and hollows. Some of these caves have obviously had a great deal of use, over many centuries. Most are tombs, many from the Bronze Age. Others have been adapted for use as water cisterns, as vats for oil or as ‘silos’ for grain. Apparently, there were indications that Nazareth had been ‘refounded’ in Hasmonean times after a long period when the area had been deserted. Yet overwhelmingly, archaeological evidence from before the second century is funerary. Obliged to admit a dearth of suitable evidence of habitation, none the less, Bagatti was able conclude that 1st century AD Nazareth had been ‘a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.’

            With a great leap of faith the partisan diggers declared what they had found was ‘the village of Jesus, Mary & Joseph’ – though they had not found a village at all, and certainly no evidence of particular individuals. The finds were consistent, in fact, with isolated horticultural activity, close to a necropolis of long-usage.

            Rather conveniently for the Catholic Church, questionable graffiti also indicated that the shrine was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, no less!

            Yet one point is inescapable: the Jewish disposition towards the ‘uncleanliness’ of the dead. The Jews, according to their customs, would not build a village in the immediate vicinity of tombs and vice versa. Tombs would have to be outside any village.

            “The tombs, both those discovered by Bagatti and others known from earlier explorations, would have been placed outside the village and serve, in fact, to delimit its circumference for us. Looking at their locations on the plans drawn up by Bagatti (1.28) or Finegan (27), one realizes just how small the village actually was …”

            – J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus.

            But just how small can we get before giving up on a ‘village’? The presence of numerous rock-cut tombs that close to the ‘grotto’ is evidence that, in the 1st century, in that area, there was no village. The area was not inhabited, even if it was used.

            Catholic archaeologists #2 1996 -1997 Dr. Pfann (Franciscan School of Theology) digs at Nazareth. In November 1996 Stephen Pfann of the Center for the Study of Early Christianity began an investigation of agricultural terraces in the grounds of Nazareth Hospital. What Pfann and his crew came up with was a vaguely-dated winepress, described as ‘ancient’. Potsherds were also found on the surface of the terraces, dating from various periods ‘beginning with the early to late Roman periods.’

            An archaeological survey of the surface of the land adjacent to Nazareth Hospital was conducted between February and May 1997 by Pfann and a team, all from the Center for the Study of Early Christianity. Two distinct areas were identified which are defined by the type of terracing found there. Yet dating by traditional stratification was not possible.

            With typical Christian zeal Pfann was able to conclude that ‘Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares’. It was just unfortunate that all evidence of the homes was razed by later invaders.

            In truth, the scanty evidence is consistent with the site being used as a single family farm over many centuries – and a single family farm does not make a village.

            History and archaeology actually begin to coincide with the discovery of a fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century the stone bears the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous Hadrianic war of 135 AD. Such groups would only settle in towns without gentile inhabitants, which ruled out nearby Sepphoris. Apparently, the priests had been divided from ancient times into twenty-four ‘courses’ that took weekly turns in Temple service. The restored inscription reads:

            ‘The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nasareth.’

            – J.D. Crossan (The Historical Jesus)

            A few Jewish priests and their families made up a small settlement in the southeast of the valley until the 4th century. Quite probably, they extended and re-used some of the ancient necropolis tombs. The Jewish hamlet was then supplanted by the Christian presence slightly further north, by ‘Mary’s Well’.

            One might speculate that Christian control of the village’s sole water source eventually drove the perfidious Jews away, thus allowing the Greek monks to take over the 2nd century synagogue – now known as the ‘synagogue-church’ – sometime in the 4th century when Christianity got the official stamp of approval. A town grew up at the site, causing the abandonment and destruction of any more ancient Jewish dwellings which, as in Capernaum, were most probably built without foundations. Some Jews subsequently re-settled in the valley, for we know that they were expelled again from the area in the 7th century for collaboration with the Persians.

            Enter your evidence free auto-denial here:
            V
            V

          • Woman In White

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/22/research.artsandhumanities

            In truth, the scanty evidence is consistent with the site being used as a single family farm over many centuries – and a single family farm does not make a village.

            Nonsense, the evidence of that 1st century dwelling shows that Nazareth was inhabited in that period — contrary to the opposite claim that it wasn’t.

            Evidence of one dwelling is hardly “evidence” that it was the only dwelling in that location.

            OK, there have been archaeologists of multiple faiths, Catholic, Orthodox, Hebrew, and non-religious who have worked on these discoveries.

            The tombs, both those discovered by Bagatti and others known from earlier explorations, would have been placed outside the village and serve, in fact, to delimit its circumference for us. Looking at their locations on the plans drawn up by Bagatti (1.28) or Finegan (27), one realizes just how small the village actually was …

            You rather startlingly conclude that evidence of a village supports your idea of its non-existence.

          • rationalobservations?

            The only archaeological evidence are some bronze age burial pits and an ancient wayside well.

            The dating of the solitary structure that possibly dates from earlier than the late 3rd century CE foundation of the modern Jeebus theme park town hardly indicates the prior existence of a CITY as described within most versions of xtian bibles.

            If you are foolish enough to support Israeli tourist profits and visit the modern theme park town, you should also visit the ancient city of Sepphoris (aka Diocaesarea). That real ancient city was occupied during the 1st 3 decades of the1st century. It’s only a 45-minute walk away – and it does not get a mention in the gospels!

            There is no archaeological evidence of a village under the modern theme park town. If such evidence existed – it still would not support the legend of a CITY with a temple overlooked by a cliff as described in the biblical legends but cannot be discovered in reality.

            In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.

            Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).

            A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.

            Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it’s inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan’s troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out.

            Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley!

            With Japha’s complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth.

            At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha.

            Your bunkum is debunked and your myths are busted.

          • Sanctimony

            You really are a very, very, very serious pain in the a..e… aren’t you…..

          • rose white

            You Evos will be the ones cheering the banning of Jesus’s Prayer so here it is.

            Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done in Earth as it is in heaven, Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses and we forgive those that trespass against us, lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever, amen.

        • Sanctimony

          I, most certainly is evolved from a silverback….

    • Sanctimony

      Lordy… Poor old Dawkins… imagine being damned by someone called rose white… I hope you’ve booked your privileged seat in the firmament !

      • rose white

        You Evolutionists will be the ones cheering the banning of Jesus’ Prayer so here it is.

        Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done in Earth as it is in heaven, Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses and we forgive those that trespass against us, lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever, amen.

  • rose white

    You Evolutionists will be the ones cheering the banning of Jesus’s Prayer so here it is.
    Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done in Earth as it is in heaven, Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses and we forgive those that trespass against us, lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever, amen.

    • rationalobservations?

      Oh dear.
      Wacko alert!

      • Woman In White

        Wacko alert!

        You should use that as your siggy, Ratty.

        • rationalobservations?

          Infantile and irrelevant, as is your signature trait and habit.

          Any evidence that contradicts the apparently fraudulent origin and content of your death cult religion?

          • Woman In White

            What “death cult” ? I don’t belong to one, and so am unable to give answer to your fraudulent question.

          • rationalobservations?

            Denial is never refutation – and you appear to be incapable of presenting an evidence supported answer to any evidence based question regarding your apparently fraudulent religion, dear lady.

          • Woman In White

            Denial is never refutation

            Your moronic “understanding” is confirmed.

            I simply do not belong to a “death cult” of any manner whatsoever.

            There is no difference whatsoever between denial and refutation here.

            I deny your utterly ludicrous claim that I might belong to a “death cult”.

            I refuse any and all “validity” to all and any of your preposterous claims that I might belong to a “death cult”.

            Denial = Refutation quod erat demonsrandum, you indocte caeca.

            Would you like me to characterise Atheism as a death cult on the basis of Stalin’s atheistic-motivated killing of 20 million ?

          • rationalobservations?

            You still appear to be incapable of presenting an evidence supported answer to any evidence based question regarding your apparently fraudulent religion, dear lady.

          • Woman In White

            Your contrafactual statement “denial is never refutation” is no more based on “evidence” than it is a “question”.

          • rationalobservations?

            Do you care to make an attempt at answering these evidence based questions with authentic evidence supported answers?

            1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated evidence of the life and times of one of many messiah claimants (only much later Greek scribes employed by the 4th century Romans) named “Jesus”?

            2) Can you name a complete bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus christian bible and matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus?

            3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

            4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian bibles today?

            5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

            6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within NT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within the Torah and other Jewish literature and tradition?

Close