I think if either of those questions were posed with an invitation to discuss them in an essay style answer, there would be no real objection – it might even lead to some interesting essays and would certainly require some thought and knowledge of the background of what was being examined.

The fact the the question posed was part of a mupliple choice type format, and thus needed a true/false black and white without any grey areas type answer, shows up not just problems with the examination and the course, but with the level of thinking it expects from candidates. Which is to say no thinking at all, just blind acceptance of what they are told.

This sadly is probably how all too many of them will go on to teach religion too, and that’s the real kernel of the issue – teaching blind acceptance of one point of view isn’t teaching at all.

Hijacking the first comment to point out that this course is a certificate of religious studies that a teachers needs if they wish to teach in a catholic school (ie. 90% of Irish schools). It was written by a priest who studied under Ratzinger(as he was then) It’s not part of the general education modules and it sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the other modules. Having said that, it’s a disgrace that it is on the course at all.

Thanks sham, good to get the full story

The quote that caused such a tantrum is undoubtedly truthful. However, the real story is the fact that this atheist group is so paranoid that they go searching through books hoping to find something that will ‘offend’ them. There was a time when religious people could be accused of trying to control society through censorship but today it is the liberal secular atheist mob that seeks to deny others free speech.

trololololololol john brennan

I was hoping for a more intelligent response other than ‘he doesn’t agree with me, therefore he must be a troll’,

but not from you… :)

sorry john, i just found your generalisation of atheists as people who ” go searching through books hoping to find something that will ‘offend’ them” as paranoid in the extreme, i was assuming it was meant as sarcasm as it is such a contradiction, also this point ” There was a time when religious people could be accused of trying to control society through censorship but today it is the liberal secular atheist mob that seeks to deny others free speech” as if the church wouldnt still control censorship if they could, i just thought anyone with any level on intelligence couldnt fail to notice the extreme hypocrisy of your statements, given this i naturally assumed you were flaming the thread

I don’t know which is worse here, the fact that this group took it upon themselves to “educate” future teachers about atheist/humanism beliefs without themselves first having a bloody clue. Atheist/humanists have a profund love of life and this world, they don’t believe in any other. There have been many great atheists from Stephen Hawking to Sigmund Freud and many great believers in religion too, not believing in a spirtual being does not somehow make someone bad.
What seems to be worse is their wish to rewrite history and suggest that all the ills of the world could have been prevented;
“atheist humanism produced the worst horrors history has ever witnessed, namely Nazism, Fascism and Marxism”
If only these poor deluded folks found Jesus in their lives, the world would have been a much better place. Errr.. I don’t think so. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to whitewash history with a very large religious brush and anyone wishing to take their exam MUST say this is so when it wasn’t. We can only hope the people they turn out can actually think for themselves and decern this rubbish for what it is and never teach it themselves.

I’d have failed that exam. I thought it was religion was was responsible for the greatest horrors in history cumulatively.

John Brennan, maybe you’ll find this link interesting http://popeorhitler.com

Gingerman,your comment is much closer to the truth than any of the other nonsense written thus far,its neither religion nor its absence that is the prime cause of war,that untruth should not be peddled. It is our nature wherein the fault lies,man is but a beast at heart capable of great extremes,both good and bad. However, he lives most of his life within the limits of both,neither good nor bad.

The religions of this world provide more than a ‘context’ for savagery to take place. They also frequently provide a legitimating reason and an unquestionable framework for the unscrupulous to take advantage of the unwary. Have a read up on Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” and what Luther called for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Then compare what he called for, to the events 1933-1945.

If parents want their kids to grow up Catholic (or Muslim, whatever…) then that is their business. The state should never be involved in indoctrination. Sadly it seems Religious Ed. teachers are being trained to indoctrinate. Having said that, I’m semi-sure my religion teacher was an athiest!

Interestingly Hitler is counted as a Catholic as when the church counts its numbers it does so with birth records. If you are Christined you are forever counted as a Catholic as it is impossible to defect from the church. Also im sure i read something about letters between Hitler and the church?

Let’s not forget Franco … anudder good religious man …

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

That’s Hitler, speaking at negotiations for the Nazi-Vatican Concordant in 1933, the same year that the Nazi’s banned freethinking (freigeist) and athiest organisations. The leader of the German Freethinkers League (which opposed organised religion, and in particular the close relationships between the Nazi government and the clergy) was beheaded by the Nazi’s in 1944 for treason.

And yet somehow according to Hibernia College notes Nazism is down to Athiest Humanism. How did they figure that one out?

An estimated 188 million people killed in just the twentieth century due to state sponsored violence. This would include leaders of all religous affiliations and none.
http://m.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61916/niall-ferguson/the-next-war-of-the-world

F.Y.I Hitler was Luteran

Like most Austrians, at that time, he was raised Roman Catholic and as a child intended becoming a priest.
http://www.chacha.com/question/did-adolf-hitler-study-in-a-seminary-to-become-a-priest

Hitler probably would have made a grand priest.
Grand in so far he would have been well suited to that organisation, and probably have become the first Austrian Pope!

Like that would’ve made a difference, fascism was more important to the majority of Germans around that time, most likely acted as a consolidating force between Lutheran and Catholic regions.

You can add to that:
Suicide bombings
Frequent instances of genocide
Child genital mutilation
Prevention of HIV protection and family planning amongst the world’s poor (the world’s rich ignore this teaching)
Murder of medical and other staff connected with abortion clinics
Denigration of women
Incitement to hatred of, criminalisation of and even murder of homosexuals

The above are all either exclusively religion-inspired or are often so and the list is far from exhaustive.

Totalitarian dictatorships are not exactly communism :)

On the one hand, my thumbs down indicate only 8 Jedward fans

On the other, that’s 5 too many, discounting their parents and Louis Walsh

Here’s two more “the crusades”

I wasn’t expecting this comment

I predicted these comments!

it would require a super genius of the most colossal cerebral powers to predict these natural arguments would ensue, what lofty perch has been vacated so these titans of the intelligentsia should grace us with their prophecies?

Another two words: ignorant superstition.

Cool a two words game – the fluffy cushion….damn! Three words.

Politics is what people do. It is not about what people are.

another example of abuse of powers!

The deity was merely resting in my account

Ah yes but you see the Gomorrhites don’t count as “people” whose right must be defended

What air-head that Kennedy guy was. Sounds like a scary intolerant secular fundamentalist society. So those tax paying members of the public ( a majority in the US & Ireland ) who are christian, can’t support faith schools ?. A truly frightening ideology. You would have been right at home in the old Soviet Union.

Just want to point out that ” to teach about different faiths (and none) in a neutral and balanced way” is very optimistic…
There is a lot of faiths and beliefs, so where do you stop? Only the monotheist religions? what about the polytheists? and witchcraft? or fairies?
It’s not like some of them are more probable or make more sense…

Eppur si muove.(Galileo)

Educate Together do a great job in teaching religion in an objective manner. They teach about all major religions and humanism and atheism. Of course you can’t teach all religions but you can teach respect and understanding for all view points instead of the view that one religion is the right one.

Aurélie

Witchcraft is herbal medicine, so I doubt they will teach that.. That’s an entirely different course – its not religion for a start..
(the word translated as witch from the bible is “pharmakeia” meaning to administer drugs or poisons.. And the word “Witch” comes from the Anglo Saxon word “Wicce” meaning “Wise One” as witches were the local midwife / doctor / person who kept an eye on the wheel of the year and so instructed the village when it was time to plant and when to harvest..)

Wicca on the other hand is Gerald Gardiners mixture of his loony buddy Aleister Crowleys ideals and other belief systems.. It not “witches” in the old school sense.. Indeed the whole “being initiated into a coven” is nonsense put forth by a man who took his inspiration from Satanism..

Our go to image of what a witch is is a direct result of the demonisation of these natural healers by the church. As according to the bible, only praying can heal the sick and medicines are forbidden..
A satire was placed, making a mockery of witches that passed down through the ages, the price was paid in their lives (one major example of the RCC being involved in what is considered “black magic”)

As for Faeries.. That has a lot to do with entheogens.. Mind you, they’re not gonna teach kids about religious usage of hallucinogenic plants now are they? (perhaps they should so they get the idea that these things are sacred and not to be messed with!) so they will most likely be leaving out ancient Shamen too..

Ah yes Gavin, argue against falsely associating a belief system with a genocide by doing the same thing. Religion were responsible for the Rwandan genocide because a number of clergy were involved in it. I think I heard this one from Christopher Hitchens too. Both of you are happy to ignore the effects of ethnic groups created by Belgian colonialism for political reasons, the impact of economic crises and a lack of local dispute resolution structures . Also feel free to ignore the fact that many clergy helped save lives. It was a Catholic country at the time therefore Catholicism had to be to blame

My point was more to do with the method by which atrocities usually start, by dehumanising the victims.

In Rwanda the Tutsi were described publicly by churchmen & political opponents as cockroaches, in Europe the Jews were rats, on the north Catholics didn’t wash, in SA blacks had no soul.

It was only in the past 2 years the the head of the Anglican church in England described atheists as “not fully human”.

Also do you not think that the holocaust was in essence a ready made event just awaiting a spark. What with all the Christian churches preaching that the “Jews killed Jesus” for a few thousand years…the Nazis just tapped into Christian sentiment.

I think we both know you weren’t making a general statement about the use of dehumanising language. If it was you wouldn’t have referred to priests directly and the idea that “thats what ‘they’ did to their enemies in Rwanda”.

As for the holocaust being an inevitable conclusion of contemporary Christian sentiment about the crucifixion, no I dont agree. I think the holocaust is a product of Nazi Germany. Let me turn the question around and ask you do you really believe that if Germany in the 1930s was predominantly atheist and had a Jewish population of zero that the Nazi party would not have risen to power and found another minority group (based on ethnicity or national identity) used them as a scapegoat and killed them off instead?

I think they didn’t read “Mein Kampf” in which he clearly states that

Ok – let me try again – Hitler stating he was a Catholic is a simple item called deflection – to hide the truth – the whole Nazi system was based on esoteric beliefs from the incorrect usage of the swastika to indicate the left hand path. Rather than take Hitler at his word – look up the following research – all well documented from reliable sources – I don’t have time to educate people on this – it’s there and available if you want to do some research into the matter.

a) Wewelsburg Castle

b) Dietrich Eckhart

c) Vril Society

d) Thule society

I will find you Muslim physicists who will quote scientific data that they claim proves the Koran is the infallible word of god. A book that proclaims Muhammad flew up to heaven on a winged horse and conversed with the angel Gabriel and engaged in a bargaining process with god resulting in him telling people to pray five times a day. Almost as ridiculous as using astro physics to prove the bible is true. Jason your degree of brainwashing is quite scary indeed. My guess is you aren’t even Catholic but some type of US evangelical. Am I correct?

Well here is your Muslim equivalent link. Enjoy

http://fouadfroth.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/astrophysics-in-the-quran/

All these books Bible Koran etc contain so much ridiculous bullshit that parts of them can relate to just about anything in a metaphorical sense.

I’m sure that the Muslims can defend themselves and I’m not here to defend their faith. I would probably call myself Catholic but don’t really attend any Church – I have what I call a personal relationship with G_d.

As for brainwashing – that’s a bit harsh and it would be more supportive of your argument Cyril if you could debate me on the physics and science that I quoted rather than pull out some link from some other faith – I’m debating you on a scientific basis – based on known physics – I’m not sure anymore on why you can’t rebutt me on the facts I present rather then the facts some Muslim presents – after all I’m not going to quote Marx to rebut you or some other such atheist.

Ok, here you answered part of my question above.. So you may indeed be a somewhat secular Christian? As in, a pick and choose christian.. Which sadly according to the scriptures means that god will judge you a fraud and send you to hell.
(I merely say what the scripture says – this is not MY view)

I can believe that there is something bigger than you and I out there, but I can’t see it in the Abrahamic religions.. Which was why I was asking you above, what you describe isn’t true Christianity, or even Catholicism (which requires church attendance and confession).

Shanti – where did I pick and choose?

Jesus was asked by a man what must I do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven – Jesus answered very clearly a) you must love G_d and b) you must love thy neighbour – if you keep those commandments and accept Jesus as the son of G_d then truly you will enter the kingdom of heaven so not sure why you think a) I’m a secular christian or b) why I’m not adhering to my faith.

Please quote where you think I deviate from those 3 tenents of my faith.

As I said above, this is not according to me.. I merely go on what I have been told by many Christians.. As they quoted me a mountain of scripture to support their stances I can’t recall the specific passages unfortunately..
But I suppose to call it the word of god and then pick and choose which bits to believe and which not to believe is a paradox, perhaps even the relativist fallacy..

yeah let ignore Mein Kampf. READ MEIN KAMPF IT IS IN THERE!!!!!!!!! but than I could expect a christian fundamentalist to be deaf for the source and rather refer to opinions after that.

You might have had a point if primary school teachers were being instructed to teach children about the damaging effects of Catholicism.

The difference being there is a direct pathway to violence within religious texts. They openly endorse the most vile aspects of humanity eg misogyny homophobia and an entrenched belief that their non evidence based belief is correct. Liberal religious conveniently forget this. There is no incentive or command anywhere in Atheism that could possibly be interpreted as a justification for intolerance. No sane Atheist believes the majority of religious condone violence however their support of violent ignorant texts give justification to the minority of religious that commit despicable acts. The Bible and Koran are violent books the God Delusion is not.

Eugenics was created by an Atheist

Please see the following link re: the creator of Eugenics – an avowed anti-christian and cousin of Darwin – http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap02.html

Atheism is a belief system like bald is a hair colour!!!!

Of course atheism is a belief system – atheists believe that there is no G_d or am I missing something?

Jason I BELIEVE you are missing the “system” part…

Gavin – let me break down the “belief system” of atheists as is my understanding;

a) There is no G_d

b) Science can and will explain all

c) Religion should have no involvement in the state

etc.

If that’s not a belief system if not a downright dogma I don’t know what is.

Jason – with the exception of B. what you wrote there is just common sense.

And regarding B i don’t think science can explain all but just tell me one thing that religion conclusively explains better than science? One thing that the scientists changed their mind on and said “twas god that done it”

You are correct that it is a belief system. It is a belief system based on evidence. I am very strong in my disbelief in unicorns. Theoretically Im agnostic on the question of both god and unicorns in that no one can be certain about the existence of either god or unicorns but we can say with relative ease there is no evidence for either. There is no evidence that prayers are answered. There is no evidence that external beings intervene in human affairs. There is no evidence that the brain can reassemble consciousness even in life once it is permanently damaged. These give a view of what is probable based on evidence. Theism is the belief in yea that’s true but we are still going to believe in god prayer etc cos you Atheists cant answer every question on the origins of the universe/life etc. As for an Atheist inventing eugenics, no one is saying Atheists are without fault but inventing eugenics is inspite of Atheism. Darwinian evolution favours human empathy as a meana of group survival. Anyone who would say otherwise doesnt understand the concept of natural selection very well.

Bit ridiculous Jason to say that not believing in something is itself a belief in something. You may as well equate that with not believing in Unicorns being a belief system too

Guys my replies to you posted below by mistake rather than on this thread of comments – apologies for that

Atheism is not a belief system in the strictest sense. It merely says that where there is no proof, there should be no belief.

In the same way that I am not in the thrall of spaghetti monsters etc, I choose not have imaginary friends with long beards who love me, but demand complete acquiescence or they will burn me for eternity .

That’s not so much a belief system as it is an adherence to logic. We only believe that which is demonstrably true, and if a god or gods fall within those parameters, I (we) will accept it.

There is no proof, none, from prayer to miracles to angels. And if someone posits a theory, then there must be proof, otherwise it is a conjecture and I have little if no time for that.

Wrong….. VECs do teach religion and the spend nearly €9 million annually employing catholic priests.

You are right Paul Mcnally. The issue is that this kind of teachings have no place in a Democratic Republic. Religion only divides people. To be all inclusive we should ban religion from State funded schools and leave the teaching of religion to the parents and church.

Make religion ones own responsibility. And of course if people insist on having religious schools than they have all the right in the world to start them with their own funding.

I would be as angry as I am now if this was taught about any other religion. But as a matter of fact the hibernia notes also insult the islam and hindus. The notes can be found on http://www.piratebay.org

Well done, Paul.

I’m as guilty as many here of taking this thread off topic. However, on the other hand, it does go to show that religions are beliefs and not facts, tested using the scientific method, and, therefore have no place in the education of children – with one caveat.

Personally, I believe that the study of religion is important because it is part of the social development of human beings. It is far too complicated for one, and only one, religious belief to be indoctrinated into children before the age of reason (14 or 15 years old?) but I think it should be taught as part of man’s history long with, obviously, the contradictory, rational, views. Like human beings themselves, religions evolved and new ones continue to be created even in modern times. Individuals must be given the opportunity to make up their own minds about religion and make those decisions without being pre-programmed, from the age of four, in one flavour of faith.

The issue here is not individual comments by people. The issue is that a non-religious college is teaching material that holds one religion as true and other religions/beliefs as false, and _marking people’s exam based on their agreement with that_.

P.

I never said this wan’t the issue! I was just pre-empting many of the comments that will probably follow throughout the day :)

Its for a religion module. It would be pretty hard to complete without any religious teaching.

” It would be pretty hard to complete without any religious teaching”

It’s possible to teach _about_ all religions without having to imply that any one religion is correct/incorrect/good/evil.

P.

It’s a religious certificate required by the catholic church to teach in a catholic school, it’s not a general religious education course

Jon – please read up and the points I raised earlier in relation to Nazism and its true sources – Hitler in Mein Kampf did use the word G-d but in his case the G-d was that of the left hand path. It’s a very complex area but some of the highlights are as follows and these are easily verifiable;

a) The swasitka – an esoteric symbol turned anti-clockwise to represent the left hand path.

b) Dietrich Eckhart an avowed satanist to whom Hitler was a disciple – Eckhart chose Hitler to lead the Nazi party as he believed he was the Germanic Messiah

c) Wewelsburg castle – if you look up that and see what Hiimmler wsa doing there and what he further intended with Hitlers full backing then you will note that is has nothing to do with the Christian faith.

d) I keep hearing G-d is made up but yet have anyone to refute my scientific observer argument either. The simple facts are there are 2 possibilities both of which are currently up for scientific debate – the universe came into being by a random quantum anomaly or came into being via a sentient consciousness. Now since both can equally be proven by science we are then left with a puzzle – do we go with one or the other and what if we get it wrong?

Politics through the incorrect interpretation of Marxism, Capitalism intervention in Vietnam etc., have caused as many problems as religion if not more. Therefore we should also ban all politics and political thought if we follow your argument through to its logical conclusion.

Also Jon – if you still don’t believe me on the influence of the above people on Nazism – look up what the V stood for in the V-Rocket programme – it stood for Vril and I will let you do your own research on what the Vril society believed in – again nothing to do with G_d in the right hand path which would be Christianity.

Jason,

I realise now that you have been utterly indoctrinated by religion and that you will, as everyone does, believe what you want to believe.

I’m afraid that there is little point in continuing this dialogue. You will not be convinced by science and reality and so there is nothing to be achieved by any further discussion. My reasons are best summed up by Prof. Richard Dawkins – http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgjlcc_dawkins-answers-why-he-refuses-to-debate-creationists_news

Jon – I believe you studied Law – I studied Physics so I would on that basis be more qualified to speak on scientific matters so please refute the science I have outlined above – it’s amazing how all my critics have not been able to refute my scientific argument or debate the scientific article I posted which Dawkins as you quote could not refute and in fact had to admit that he couldn’t categorically state that G_d didn’t exist.

I’m afraid Jon that sadly you have been indoctrinated by your own dogma and refuse to debate the scientific points I raise but rather retreat to a guy who as I pointed out couldn’t refute the science when it was laid in front of him.

Did Dawkins actually concede that the Biblical God existed, or did he say he cannot deny the existence of a more advanced sentient being?
Because they’re not the same thing.. It could be any God. It could be that the Universe itself is a conscious living being and you and I are just cells within its body?

And in case I missed you linking to it earlier, could you please provide the link to where Dawkins said this, I’d be interested to read or hear what he said..

Shanti Om,

Don’t bother looking for Dawkin’s saying there’s a god, you’ll be dead before you find it and life’s too short to spend your time bothering about the wishful thinking of the deluded.

Nevermind.. I googled it..
Dawkins said he calls himself agnostic, he does not discount the (what he considers remote) possibility of a god.. That’s merely the scientific method – if there’s no proof either way then there can be no firm hypothesis. The mind must remain open to all possibilities..

He never said he thought the god of the bible was the one, just that there may be something..

The god of the bible would have a lot of explaining to do.. 
Metallic spheres with grooves etched into the equators of them discovered in S African mines dating back 2.8billion years..
The Antikythera mechanism, discovered off Crete which is supposed to have been made in 80BC, the Bagdad battery (estimated 200-300BC), The ancient airplane models found in Egypt and Central America, the Giant Stone Balls of Costa Rica, the H shaped blocks at Puma Punku, the Schist Disc – that one is pretty amazing – found in Sakkara, housed in the museum of Cairo and believed to date back to 3000BCE
http://img18.picoodle.com/img/img18/3/4/6/kennet/f_schist2m_74e6972.jpg

All of these things, not to mention the pyramids of Giza supposedly being built in 40 years when we couldn’t do it today, or any of the worlds ancient pyramids and their geometry and cosmic alignment, and then Stonehenges non native rock, the radio signals from Newgrange etc.. All point to life before the old testament.. Indeed, pretty advanced life.. 
That contradicts the bible somewhat..

Hi Shanti Om,

Ah yes, the pyramids. How modern they are.

I’m guessing that you haven’t come across Göbekli Tepe (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text). Whilst this thread – and the other one on boards.ie (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056553324) – would seem to prove the opposite, I don’t actually spend all my life on the internet and it was an atheist theology graduate that told me about it. A staggering 11,600 years old, it makes all the other ancient sites of civilisation look positively contemporary.

Of course, to the looney creationists, this predates God’s creation of the earth by 5,400 years so God must have put it there to test our faith in Him – like dinosaur fossils and stars, 13.2 billion light years away, managing to get their light to earth in less than 6,000 years.

Man is brilliant. It’s discoveries like this, that predate modern religions by thousands of years, that prove that man, a necessarily social species, was building civilisations and, of necessity, living within a moral and ethical code, at least ten 6,000 years before modern religions ‘invented’ morals. It also shows that religions are, thank goodness, ephemeral in relation to the around 200,000 years that homo sapiens have walked the earth.

Very interesting indeed Jon, cheers for that :)

Boorman – Open Satanist, Hitler – disciple of Dietrich Eckhart – Open Satanist, Himmler – Open Esoteric New Ager – Goering – Open Esoteric New Ager, Goebbels – Open Atheist – which Christian Nazis are you talking about Rab?

True they may all have been born into the Christian faith but developed there own adult beliefs and this is well documented historically – and I’m too tired to re-write all the areas that I have pointed out previously where this can be researched and proved.

All the ones who wore the words ‘Gott Mit Uns’ on their belt buckles, so that’ll be virtually all of them then.

You forgot to mention that their king of the hill was a died in the wool ‘god’ botherer, but that doesn’t surprise me as religious apologists are great at leaving out details they don’t like.

You cannot change historical fact, regardless of how much you dislike it.

Adolf Hitler was an open christian, this was the case and will forever be the case. Now, why don’t you just accept it instead of throwing the toys out of the pram like a bloody child? Is it the fact you have childish beliefs that stop you from acting like a fully grown adult?

Grow up and get over it. The worst bad guy in recorded history was a member of your team, not ours.

Rab – obviously you don’t understand the difference between the god of the left hand path and the G_d of the right hand path and did no research into any of the key historically verifiable terms and areas that I provided. Lazy – very Lazy – when you get around to reading up on the differences then you may understand what I’m saying.

Blah blah blah. Hitler was a catholic, a baptised member of the original christian church, he worshipped the same fairy you did and there was nothing left hand path about it.

Even if he was left hand path (he wasn’t, he was very obviously catholic, which is right hand path, and yes I do know the difference) it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference because christians believe there’s only a single ‘god’, meaning that regardless of who he thought he was mumbling to in prayer it would have been the same ‘god’ you pray to.

Hitler was a christian. There’s no 2 ways about this. You can get into whatever nonsense you want but at the end of the day it always comes back to the same thing: Hitler believed in and worshipped the jew zombie, even going so far as to claim he was doing ‘god’s work’ in exterminating the jews.

You’re so deluded it’s unbelievable, much like the contents of your bible.

Just in case you missed it above, i’ll spell it out again a bunch of times for you:

HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN • HITLER WAS CHRISTIAN

Got it now? Good.

Sorry Rab – I haven’t learnt to speak crap yet but when I do I’ll be sure to re read your posts!

That’s the best you’ve got? No real surprise there.

Rab perhaps you should read the MIT Brennender Sorge encyclical sent by Pope Pius XI to German catholic churches to be read on Palm Sunday 1937. Here are some quotes :

“The Church founded by the Redeemer is one, the same for all races and all nations”

“You need to watch carefully, Venerable Brethren, that religious fundamental concepts be not emptied of their content and distorted to profane use”

And on the Reichskonkordat
“Hence, despite many and grave misgivings, We then decided not to withhold Our consent for We wish to spare the Faithful of Germany, as far as it was humanly possible, the trials and difficulties they would have had to face, given the circumstances , had the negotiations fallen through”

“The experiences of these last years have fixed responsibilities and laid bare intrigues, which from the outset only aimed at a war of extermination. In the furrows, where We tried to sow the seed of a sincere peace, other men – the “enemy ” of Holy Scripture – oversowed the cockle of distrust, unrest, hatred, defamation”

Doesn’t sound like support of Hitler and the Nazi government to me

Eh Jason why won’t you write god? Are you that fundy?

See Gavin – that is the problem with zealot atheists – they won’t respect anyone’s beliefs but their own without resorting to the insult of fundy – in fact that terminology seems more apt to most of the atheists on here – I stated in my above comment that everyone has the right to free will and believe what they want but my free will to write G-d the way I choose results in name calling – nice bigotry there my friend – but I’ll turn the other cheek :) so slap away!

LOL that’s so childish.

Reminds me of that little neurotic dog in the Jack Nicholson film “as good as it gets”

Not to worry mate – I also forgive :)

Would you write “a god” or “some gods”?

….or that dinner was good enough for Jehovah ?

May I ask, after your mathematical research, which god it led you to?

Shanti – for me after research into other faiths – some soul searching and personal experiences it was Christianity that felt right for me and that includes reading the Sumerian accounts and finding plenty of rebuttals to same which more than swung it for me

I have to say, that if string theory brought you to God…

You’re doing it wrong

And if you think that Satan is Prince of the world, then you are a mentalist. A 9th Dan, fluorescent coloured belted mentalist and you have as much credibility as a child telling me of their fervent belief in Santa

Robert – I never said string theory brought me to G_d – I didn’t buy into string theory as it doesn’t stand up in my opinion. Please re-read my post and you will see what scientific argument I use

Robert and if you think we are all random quantum aberrations, who fluked into existence then you are also a mentalist as you put it.

It’s very simple, if your G-d created the universe, who created him / her?

If you are saying that your “G-d” just appeared from nowhere, then I can say the same about the universe. And because the universe is actually here, and your “G-d” has not made itself known, ever. And I mean ever. Then apart from your clever trolling, you have nothing.

I believe what is true, what is true is apparent and demonstrable. You just fill in the blanks with a G and a – and a D and those blanks keep getting filled with proper proof, proper theory and proper logic.

There is a G, There is a – and there is a D.

On my keyboard

But you will never prove that there is a GOD, because there isn’t. And if you want proof (of sorts) that there isn’t then the priests who raped those children, well they didn’t believe in it either, they believed in power, the power that weak minded mentalists like you gave them when you surrendered your thought processes to these vile, twisted virgins

Robert – G_d was not created – G_d always was and will be – I suppose the same as your famous quantum anomaly which you claim brought us all here then – funny that!

G_d has been scientifically proven and even Richard Dawkins had to admit on the back of that science that he could no longer state 100% that G_d didn’t exist – do a google on it and you will find the article.

Jesus would have been horrified at what evil has been done in Christianity’s name on some occasions just like I’m sure you are horrified at what some atheists have done, i.e. Created Eugenics which were the basis of the holocaust, Stalin, Mao et all killing millions. If you are trying to prove the benefits of atheism by quoting what some evil people have done in G-d’s name, then you must also have an explanation for why some atheists have committed such horrible crimes or rather is it humanity that’s the common factor.

Try thinking things through a little more

Please do not be offended by this question, I genuinely would like to hear the answer.

How does one rationalise Christianity once it’s roots in Astrotheology, Sumeria and Mushroom worship have been exposed? John Marco Allegro may have suffered the wrath of the Vatican, but many are now coming forward corroborating his research..

Not to mention the massive inherent contradictions and paradoxes in the Bible, and the twisted logic contained therein.. They bugged me as a child, now with the work of Allegro et al it makes a bit more sense, and parallels other mythologies. So now I can appreciate the stories in the bible a bit better – if it’s approached as metaphor solely. But it says in the scriptures for each of the Abrahamic religions that scripture must be taken literally and followed precisely otherwise one cannot call themselves a true believer..
Jesus had a bee in his bonnet about the Pharisees deviating from their scripture, the Mohammed came along and had a go at the Jews and the Christians for not sticking to the laws of Abraham.. But these laws are quite er, homophobic, sexist, barbaric etc.. And would require the dissolution of the state of Israel (according to the fundamentalist Jews, or True Torah Jews) and the burning of all doctors, nurses, herbalists, and pharmaceutical companies (the term translated as “witch” as in “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” was, in Greek, pharmakeia, which means to administer drugs or poisons, this is what a “Witch” is by Biblical standards).

For this reason I would have an issue with identifying with any of the Abrahamic religions.. Don’t get me wrong, all the peace and love aspects of Jesus I totally respect, but there’s a lot more to it than that, as I’m sure all of us here know.

I’m not trying to be a smart arse :) just trying to understand how maths caused you arrive in that particular religion..
I’m dubious of any religion that claims to be the absolute truth, as the truth is none of us can know for sure. For it to add in threats for non compliance seems desperate and also seems to be fallacious.. Which is why I would have more respect for those who don’t claim to be the absolute – but are open to all possibilities..

Hi Shanti – not offended at all – I’m never afraid to enter into questions or debates on these matters. Firstly maths didn’t lead me to Christianity but did lead me to G_d, just to clarify that.

I’m well aware of the research that you are claiming but that has been refuted several times and has to do with disagreements between differing academics on the meaning of certain words in a dead language that people interpret in differing ways. I can give you alternative links on this if you wish.

The bible is not really full of contradictions in my opinion but I would be happy to discuss with you where it does – remember the new testament fulfilled the law of the old and brought in the new way of 2 commandments.

Jesus was not wedded to literal interpretation so I would have to disagree with you there- some examples would be his own liberal use of parables, his scolding of the Pharisees for sticking to the literal letter of the law and not it’s meaning – an example would be when he healed the man with the withered hand on the sabbath when the pharisees claimed no work should be done or when he stopped the stoning of the prostitute by saying let only those who have sinned cast the first stone when the literal law commanded stoning.

Hope that helps you understand my opinion

But Jesus didn’t fulfil the prophesy.. He has yet to lead the Jews out of exile and ascend them all to heaven, he is expected to do this in the second coming, but he has not done this, hence why up until the middle of the last century the Jewish Encyclopedia referred to him as a “sorceror” and “bastard son of a whore”.
Indeed, it is frowned upon to speak Jesus’ name in devout Jewish households.
This is why the Jews did not and still do not accept him.

John Marco Allegros work was ripped to shreds by the Vatican and his book was banned.. His career was decimated.. As he was the only non biased scholar working on the dead sea scrolls and he was attacked with such vigour (and is now vindicated), it implies the Church needed to silence him.

As for the being strict about adherence, I merely relay what the more fundamentalist Christians I have conversed with have told me. As I said, if it’s to be taken as metaphor, and god / Jesus is love then I am the way and the light and the truth…. Makes more sense, replace Jesus with love, father with source.. To make it so it has to be Jesus and everything he said (including burn the non believers) then that doesn’t make sense.

The body and blood makes more sense in context of the mushroom being godsflesh, and the Vatican back that up, quite blatantly once you realise what you are looking at.. (the Popes ceremonial robes, the fountains in St Peters Square, the Holy Grail, the shape of Chalices etc)

The story of creation and taking the bible as fact leads to the question of where on earth the Sumerians factor in, Nevermind whoever built newgrange, Stonehenge, and the pyramids dotted all over the planet in the shapes of constellations, or the sheer amount of crazy prehistoric machine made stuff, like the anti kythera mechanism, the perfect spheres and what look like propellor blades, things that present day technology is incapable of creating..

And then there’s the idea that a god created the universe and man, but left out the dinosaurs, and didn’t create life on any of the other billions of planets in the solar system – never mind the universe.. I find that a tad unbelievable.. There’s more evidence to back up the existence of aliens than there is to back up the idea of god.. Some even hypothesise that what we refer to as gods were in fact aliens!

Nice job

leave it and just go

Jason — can I suggest you go read the full thread (below) on the exam questions and the other material provided by the college before commenting? The questions posed were ludicrously one-sided and the answers preposterous and in defiance of the very basic facts of history.

Robert – I would if I had access to all of the entire syllabus and exam questions asked throughout this course – to make sweeping comments based on one paper is not sensible in my opinion. Plus my comment related to a lot more than just the exam paper – only one paragraph related to that

“exam question was one designed to provoke thought ”

If it’s designed to “provoke thought”, why is there a yes/no/true/false answer?

P.

Well said Jason,spot on.

Paul – cause you have to think about the answer :) and then give a yes / no etc. response. To be honest this is a storm in a tea cup – a faith based school offers a question on whether atheism has been a bad influence – why is this any different than what Dawkins has been arguing and has been given media platforms to debate upon – really they thought police are going too far now.

Everyone has the right to free speech and people can opt in or out of these courses, religious, atheist or otherwise. They have the right to believe or disbelieve, the right to answer yes or no to these questions etc. This is what a free society is about.

“Free speech”? What *are* you on about? This is an exam for the people who will end up teaching the country’s kids. It’s completely inappropriate for them to be required to produce false and defamatory “answers” to leading questions. It sets a poor example for honesty, I’d have thought.

And that’s quite apart from the fact that these people have to do this pointless exam and waste time on this pointless subject because unelected, unaccountable religious organizations control 98% of the country’s schools.

“Paul – cause you have to think about the answer and then give a yes / no etc. response.”

Yes, and based on the course work, there is _only_ a right answer! If the student answers “no, atheism is not the worst horror in history”, _they are not awarded marks_. That is hardly a course which is encourages free expression and thinking, and is in fact the exact opposite.

P.

And the “free speech” excuse is baloney. “Free speech” would not excuse a college teaching in a biology class that whites are superior to blacks. Neither does it excuse Hibernia College educating the next generation of teachers to be bigots.

P.

Lads you are making this too easy;
a) The church runs most schools because the state allowed that to prevail – it was not a malicious takeover and throughout countless elections people have voted for parties who have maintained that status within the educational system. If you disagree vote for politicians who wish to change the make up of the educational system.
b) Faith based schools do have the right to promote atheism as a false belief that is responsible for a lot of death as many self avowed atheists as I have listed earlier have been responsible for millions of deaths just as Atheists espouse the fact that Religion is the cause of millions of deaths due to self avowed spiritual people – whats the difference.
c) If you’re worried about how much influence these teachers have in your children you obviously don’t think parents have any influence at all – as a parent of a 12 year old, I would hate to see the day when a teacher in her school would have more influence on her outlook than I would? Anyways, the nature of youth in the teenage years is to question everything so I wouldn’t be too worried about the teachers.

how can a question, where the expected answer is ‘true’, provoke thought? if It’s the only acceptable answer, then not much thought needed?

Ronan – they also gave false as an option or did they not? If false is also an option then the student has the right to disagree with the statement as well as agree – simple really.

Maybe you’re right there, but i do know that as part of my degree, if we ever have mcqs and have a true or false option, when we tick the one that’s not expected, it usually means its wrong! In this case, ‘true’ was the expected answer, and therefore must be the correct answer. Simple really!

Yes Jason, but if eye hey chose false they were not awarded marks. That’s the point.

Ronan / Ultan – no doubt you are correct but the option was still there to say no – plus this is a faith based course and a faith based school and why would anyone choose the course unless they believed faith was a better option than atheism – that’s why I think this debate is a bit of a non-runner.

If an atheist based school ran a course offering the opposite view that religion caused untold death – I wouldn’t be too bothered – I presume the people taking that course would have held that viewpoint anyways

“no doubt you are correct but the option was still there to say no ”

Are you genuinely stupid? Why would a student answer a question “no” if they know they are going to be marked down? It’s not an “option” if a student has paid €9,000 for a H. Dip and wants to get it. They’re going to mark whatever answers gets them the marks.

Also, you keep referring to Hibernia College as a “faith-based school”. It’s not – it’s a secular, non-religious college. _That’s the point_. It’s a college training teachers for _all faiths_ and for _all schools_, yet is teaching those teacher than Christianity is right and everything else is wrong.

My final response, as I believe you’re either just incapable of understanding the issues here, or are deliberately acting stupid in order to provoke a response.

P.

The Old Testament is stuffed full of genocide, inflicted the God character, not least the total destruction of every living thing on earth apart from a (very small) boat-load of middle-eastern animals (no kangaroos) and a family called Noah.

Paul logic may escape you as seems to be the case but if it’s a secular school why would it be eliciting a faith based answer to be the correct one? That’s logic I’m using – try it – you may find it useful in life

Er, your logic includes making the assumption that Hibernian college is a faith based school, and that a multiple choice question which could be the difference between a credit and a distinction provokes thought?
That’s not logic.. That’s fallacy.

Hitler writes in his book Mein Kampf that he is a catholic. Maybe you should read that before referring to wiki (not a really good source)

Me thinks that you should research a better source than wiki. That is how incorrect fact spread. Wiki is therefore not accepted as source anywhere. Besides the Celts used the swastika as well and it is more likely that the nazi’s got it from there.

Again incorrect – the Swastika was an eastern symbol found in India and Tibet etc. The Nazi’s considered those regions the home of the aryans and hence used that symbol and in fact did a well documented trip to Tibet to try and prove their aryan theory.

The usage of the symbol had nothing to do with the celts although the celts did also adopt it

Jason I am forced to take what should be the nuclear option here, the killer blow that should end this argument but like any hard believing religious person I know it will still wash off like water off a ducks back. Go read http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Cyril – unfortunately it’s not the nuclear option but I will read it but only if you in turn will read the a small example of the scientific argument for G-d;

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe/

Jason you have got to be shitting me. You cant seriously believe our inability to understand matter/anti-matter and the relationship between chaos and order is proof of the truth of the Bible? Islamists try the same thing stating the Koran contains details about embryology and humans forming from a clot of blood. The Bible talks of the universe being created in 7 days and plants being made before the goddamn sun. Light was even made before this light producing object. This book has about as much scientific knowledge as a meth head high on acid. Let me quote you a real scientist that even this daft piece seems to wish to exploit.

I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. Stephen Hawking

The next most famous astro physicist Brian Cox is a member of the British Humanist Association. Just because there are Muslim doctors wearing stethoscopes who don’t believe in Darwinian evolution doesn’t make their point of view anymore credible either. Very smart people can be religiously brainwashed perhaps not as readily as the uneducated but nevertheless Iranian scientists still believe in Ahmadinejad etc. Sorry Jason its batshit.

Cyril – that piece as a a guy who studied physics is very well written and scientifically accurate.

Re: the bible let me enlighten you – G-d created the world in 7 days yes – in 7 G-d days – the bible goes on to explain later that one day to G-d is countless human years.

The reason light is referred too – is that G-d is defined as a being of light and in that case it is not the sun that is being referred too.

Since you are quoting Hawking whose theories have failed to unify the forces and Cox who hasn’t written a notable scientific theory in his own right let me throw Einstein back at you.

You are entitled to your beliefs and I’m not trying to convert you – just rebutting your arguments. If the Universe was even a fraction more strong or weak when it comes to the gravitational force life couldn’t exist as the sun and planets couldn’t have formed. In fact the Universe is so finally balanced for life that the odds of it being so are astronomical.

Scientists to explain this have come up with Multiverse or string theory. This states that there are an infinite amount of universes and we happen to be in the one that produced life. Problem wit this theory is that it has also failed to produce the Unified theory, therefore on the basis of scientific evidence this is also a failure.

The physics version of G-d would state that it is proven that an observer influences the universe – how? well simple example is if you wish to observe an atom in time and space you must do so by firing a photon at it – however by firing that photon then you influence the very object that you were trying to observe as that photon will move and change the location and possible configuration of that atom. The G-d theory at it’s simplest would argue that this is how our Universe works – a sentient being who observes and influences the universe around it.

FFS, Jason, are you a creationist too?

Robin – the universe was created – in your case by a unexplainable quantum anomaly that randomly resulted in everything around us – in my case by a sentient being – in both cases we are creationists.

So where does your god who created the universe and set the universal constants come from? You have in a stroke proclaimed something more complex than the universe just happened to come together by chance? That would be infinitely more improbable than the spontaneous assembly of matter and time. It is most probable god did not fine tune the universe. It is there because the constants are just right for it. You are writing to me because of the random chance of one sperm out of hundreds of thousands winning a lottery. This is chance we have undeniable evidence for it. The universe is the same thing. God did not fine tune earth which is ideal for life. That life evolved because the conditions are appropriate for it. The vast majority of the universe is baron and hostile to life. You cant explain one set of improbabilities by inventing an exponentially greater improbability.

Even if such a being did set the universe in motion. All my arguments still apply. He most definitely does not preside over a judicial system. He doesn’t interfere in the affairs of men. The Bible is still a book of fairy tales as is the Koran and Torah. Such a being could be hostile to humans. A being who would have consciously made us to be tribal, prone to dreadful diseases and the ravages of time. A god who would have made us believe in ridiculous things and elect insane leaders. A god who would have designed people of being capable of sending millions of the Jews to the gas chambers. You cant let him off the hook for this either. He made humans. We do not have free will it is an illusion. God would have made us capable of voting regimes such as Kim Jong il etc. I am an antitheist as well as an Atheist. The evidence shows that were such a being to exist he would have been wicked beyond belief. Much more so than the worst sociopath, paedophile or mass murderer. They are acting as a product of their social environment genetics etc. God would have had to have a plan for this to occur. Even if you were to try to use the fallacy of free will then what about their victims?

Theism is a wretched and evil philosophy. It abdicates thinking. It places begging an imagined deity for forgiveness rather than seeking it from the victim.

Jason So where does your god who created the universe and set the universal constants come from? You have in a stroke proclaimed something more complex than the universe just happened to come together by chance? That would be infinitely more improbable than the spontaneous assembly of matter and time. It is most probable god did not fine tune the universe. It is there because the constants are just right for it. You are writing to me because of the random chance of one sperm out of hundreds of thousands winning a lottery. This is chance we have undeniable evidence for it. The universe is the same thing. God did not fine tune earth which is ideal for life. That life evolved because the conditions are appropriate for it. The vast majority of the universe is baron and hostile to life. You cant explain one set of improbabilities by inventing an exponentially greater improbability.

Even if such a being did set the universe in motion. All my arguments still apply. He most definitely does not preside over a judicial system. He doesn’t interfere in the affairs of men. The Bible is still a book of fairy tales as is the Koran and Torah. Such a being could be hostile to humans. A being who would have consciously made us to be tribal, prone to dreadful diseases and the ravages of time. A god who would have made us believe in ridiculous things and elect insane leaders. A god who would have designed people of being capable of sending millions of the Jews to the gas chambers. You cant let him off the hook for this either. He made humans. We do not have free will it is an illusion. God would have made us capable of voting regimes such as Kim Jong il etc. I am an antitheist as well as an Atheist. The evidence shows that were such a being to exist he would have been wicked beyond belief. Much more so than the worst sociopath, paedophile or mass murderer. They are acting as a product of their social environment genetics etc. God would have had to have a plan for this to occur. Even if you were to try to use the fallacy of free will then what about their victims?

Theism is a wretched and evil philosophy. It abdicates thinking. It places begging an imagined deity for forgiveness rather than seeking it from the victim.

Jason you can read? The Nazi party had more affinity with the Celts than with the other cultures you mention. You go ahead and base your opinions upon wiki….. really before you say people are incorrect please refer to real sources.

But try and read Mein Kampf and you will hear out of the horses mouth that Hitler was a catholic and he hated atheists. And yes I read it in German to check if the translation. Something religious people should do with their own books.

Cyril in your case it was an unexplainable random quantum anonmaly that created the universe that is also very unlikely given the astronomical odds at getting a universe which gravitationally so fine tuned to allow the formation of stars, planets, life etc.

With regards to the evil that has occurred in this world – this is not down to G-d , the bible states very clearly that Satan is the prince of this world and therefore that is why the world is evil.

G-d gave us free will to choose evil or good – the 10 commandments in anybody’s view, religious or otherwise are an excellent set of principles – the reason for most war is to kill, steal, that they covet something another state or king has etc.

Re: the old testament – in my faith – Jesus fulfilled all the old laws and left only 2 new ones, Love G-d and Love thy neighbour as thy self – even if you don’t agree with the first you have to agree that on the second, if atheists and Christians alike lived by that principle the world would be a much better place to live in.

Martin – you are way off base and Wiki is not my source just a link I used – did you research any of the items that I gave you und Ich Spreche ein bichen Deutsche auch mein freund aber mein grammatik ist nicht so gut.

If you did research any of the above items which are documented historical facts you will see that you are way off kilter – Mein Kampf was Hitlers manifesto and my word how you can trust any politicians manifesto never mind a maniac’s whose agenda was hidden then that shows a very poor sense of judgement.

Jason I have given you about as much evidence for why the Bible is utter nonsense. I have shown that while neither of us know how the universe came to be. Your explanation is nothing short of an inability to absorb evidence. Reading the website I showed you should given free thinking cognitive function, rid you of any notions you have about this book. I cant technically call you delusional as a significant amount of the population think the same thing. In Psychiatry if a culture engages in evidence denial they are not technically insane. I must also hold my tongue on any medical pronouncements about the Taliban culture who believe they must paint the windows of houses to stop men looking in at women and believe that the creator of the universe believes men’s beards must be of a certain length. I must refrain from calling them delusional also because psychiatry dictates so. However on the basis of your argument were they not the numbers of evidence deniers on your side the result would be a delusional diagnosis. Mind control can mimic the effects of people to perceive reality in a way that neither mental illness or the use of hallucinogenic drugs can. I still respect your right to believe and there ends my argument.

Cyril again you are quoting the Muslim faith at me – I’m not a muslim so feel free to take up the Taliban debate with someone from that faith.

With regards to our debate I have presented clear scientific proof of the observer influence at the sub-atomic level and if it occurs at that level it occurs everywhere. I have yet to hear an argument that refutes that.

Unfortunately you also have a dogma and I have given you very good reasons why the world is the way it is and always has been under atheistic rulers and rules of faith – Satan’s influence – in my faith this will continue and humanity will in fact only get worse in it’s killing and maiming and inhumanity to man until Jesus returns to bring G-d’s rule back to this earth.

Thankfully you will let me continue in my belief although you disagree and in turn I will respect your belief that G-d gave you the free will to have.

Anyways, enjoy debating with you and G-d bless :)

I’d like to know:
1) If God created the world and described it in the Bible, how come he missed the fact that he’d created a sphere, going round the sun, in the western arm of a galaxy, of which there are billions?

2) Why is it bad to be gay but OK to wear polyester/cotton shirts?

3) Why do owls do so well in the list of things not to eat?

4) Why does Jason’s keyboard type a ‘-’ instead of an ‘o’ when it types God?

5) How is it that there were no kangaroos on the Ark but there are in Australia?

Jon – happy to answer to the best of my knowledge;

a) I don’t think it claims anywhere in the bible that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun – in fact it states that G_d separated day and night – does that not describe what happens when the earth revolves around the sun?? Also the bible refers several times to the stars – is that not the galaxy you speak of?

b) You refer to Leviticus here – that’s from the old testament. If you read the new testament you will see that Jesus fulfilled the law leaving only 2 commandments – Love thy G_d and Love thy neighbour as thy self.

c) I suppose Owls do so well for the same reason that coffee, pizza, high fat meat etc., are so bad to eat today ;) Anyways as I said previously this comes from the old testament – Christians would state that no longer applies due to Jesus fulfillment of the Law. Perhaps a Muslim or Jew who deny Jesus and still enact these laws could answer this for you.

d) G_d I write as such as G_d’s name is sacred to me and as such should not be referred too in the full sense – much the same reason as some people say F**k instead of the real word as it offends their sensibilities.

e) The bible does not state anywhere the entire list of animals that were taken on the ark – in fact I would like to see the passage where you think it does.

Hope that helps :)

Jon – actually I meant the seasons rather then the earth revolving around its axis causing night and day – a couple of other small things too – aren’t Owls an endangered species today and we still are not allowed to eat them?

What truth might that be? The truth that the roman catholic church celebrated hitler’s birthday every year whilst he was alive? That truth?

Unless of course you were talking to Jason Finnerty, in which case please excuse me and carry on.

Lads you are making this too easy;

a) The church runs most schools because the state allowed that to prevail – it was not a malicious takeover and throughout countless elections people have voted for parties who have maintained that status within the educational system. If you disagree vote for politicians who wish to change the make up of the educational system.

b) Faith based schools do have the right to promote atheism as a false belief that is responsible for a lot of death as many self avowed atheists as I have listed earlier have been responsible for millions of deaths just as Atheists espouse the fact that Religion is the cause of millions of deaths due to self avowed spiritual people – whats the difference.

c) If you’re worried about how much influence these teachers have in your children you obviously don’t think parents have any influence at all – as a parent of a 12 year old, I would hate to see the day when a teacher in her school would have more influence on her outlook than I would? Anyways, the nature of youth in the teenage years is to question everything so I wouldn’t be too worried about the teachers.

Sorry Jon – replied to the wrong comment – that was not addressed at you – cheers