Archive for category new atheism
Exodus: Gods and Kings and a secularisation of the Bible
Posted by simon peter sutherland in new atheism, The influence of film on January 4, 2015
December 2014 saw the release of the latest rendition in the string of so-called Biblical movies. “Exodus: Gods and Kings” is director Ridley Scott’s ‘fictional retelling’ of the autobiographical historical and Biblical story of Moses and the Exodus.
The film industry’s re-telling of Biblical stories is nothing new. After all, the Bible contains the greatest narratives ever written so its no surprise when Hollywood and so forth use the stories to make a lot of money out of them. Every major cult and industry in the world has used the Bible to further their own agenda’s and no surprises, the Holy Bible is the greatest book ever written. So it comes as no surprise to me when I see secularists using the Bible to fire darts at faith.
So what then of Exodus: Gods and Kings? Well, I have a few thoughts on it, much of which echo’s what I have said a number of times.
I went to see Exodus: Gods and Kings with a fellow Christian and sadly, the film was as I expected it to be: ‘it was good… but not that good. It could have been magnificent‘.
As an actual film, Exodus: Gods and Kings was well made. Ridley Scott’s direction was mature and accomplished. The sets were magnificent. The audio and visuals superb. And so it should be, these people have been making movies for years. Likewise, the acting was excellent. Moses was played by Christian Bale, and although I do not think he portrayed Moses accurately toward the Biblical or Talmudic texts, I thought gave an excellent and dominating performance for what it was. Joel Edgerton played a brilliant characterization of Ramesses 11 and again an excellent performance. However, despite Exodus: Gods and Kings being somewhat of an accomplished film, it was like secularisation and new atheism: full of gaps.
I would like to point out that within the context of historical accuracy and Biblical and Theological insight, I thought the film positively slumped because of the script and its rejection of the grand Biblical text. The film portrayed God inconsistently according to the Bible, and even the Talmud and reason, and it insulted and attacked the foundations of Judaism and Christianity in a subtle yet obvious way.
Exodus: Gods and Kings presents a secularisation of the Bible!
I went to see this film in 3D at a screening almost devoid of people and watched the film intently. Unfortunately I left the theatre with a feeling that I hadn’t really seen anything purposeful. In other words I left the theatre wondering ‘what was all that about’? They missed a lot of the best bits out. But I guess that will happen when the Bible is in the hands of the secularists. They clearly have a problem with the Bible.
For the first half of the film, much of it worked. But there were problems right from the start, first of which was the inclusion of the Battle of Kadesh in one of the opening scenes.
These are a few of the problems.
-
The Battle of Kadesh occurred 1274 BC. In the film Moses was in the battle and saved Ramesses life. The problem is, Biblically and Historically it is doubtful that Moses was even there. The reason I say this is Battle of Kadesh took place under Ramasees 11, who could not have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Ramesses 11 reigned in the 19th Dynasty (1279-1213 BC) Moses lived either 1391-1271 BC, or according to Ussher Chronology Moses was born 1571 BC.
-
Thus, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was likely to have been Thutmoses 111 or Amenophis 11, certainly not Ramesses 11.
Sadly, as the film progressed it became clear that a covert Hollywood sewer was continuing to pump out its ‘Anti-Christian’ or anti-Judaic propaganda. They quite literally reversed almost everything. Continuing on in a long line of obvious messages like those found in ‘Lego movie’ and ‘Noah’, the script of Exodus: Gods and Kings presented new atheist mind seeds from an anti-religious lobby.
In fact, Christian Bale at a recent BAFTA Q & A claimed that ‘Moses and Ramesses’ were, at the start of the film “essentially, two atheists”. A claim which cannot be verified by any reliable historical source. Neither the Bible, Josephus or any Jewish historical narrative makes any such claim.
I am reminded of the words of the Psalmist: “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” Psalm 2: 1-3
Like Noah and Lego Movie, each of these films have one thing in common: they all present their rendition of “the Creator” or “the man upstairs” or “God” as the bad guy. I think Exodus: Gods and Kings travels the same path. It presents God like a child who wants all his own way and unless he gets it, he will inflict pain upon people. This is not a correct character assessment of the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible punished people according to the law, not His emotions. The God of the Bible pleaded and pleads with people to repent, like He did with the Pharaoh who through Moses said “Let My people go” (Exodus 9: 1)
But in Exodus: Gods and Kings, Moses is the one who makes the demands and not while holding a staff, but placing a sword to Ramesses’ throat. Moses is transformed from a Prophet into one who does not believe in prophecy and, as I repeat, according to Christian Bale in the recent interview, was an atheist? In this film Moses was not a humble man, as is historically claimed, but rather one who refuses to be humbled. In Exodus: Gods and Kings the secularists have transformed Moses from what he was into a shadow of their own selves. Moses the atheist? A claim that is not supported in any historical account from either the Bible, the Talmud, Josephus or any other historical narrative.
In Exodus: Gods and Kings, God does not necessarily appear to have instigated the plagues, he merely knows they are coming and uses them to his own advantage. That is, if the film is even claiming that God actually exists? After all, apart from one fragment of a scene, where Moses is shouting at this god and yet he does not appear until Moses is walking away, I would doubt that God is portrayed at all in this film?
Like the Noah movie, with the inclusion of Methuselah drinking tea and serving it to Noah, the god-child in Exodus: Gods and Kings was likewise serving tea from an Arabic teapot to Moses. Very odd! What point are they both making there? Could it be communicating that Moses was at Sinai in Arabia? The problem is that we have no evidence of tea drinking in those areas and the ancient Egyptians drank water, beer, milk and wine. But Tea? Tea originated in China. What’s all that about?
The scene which began the tea drinking curio, was the scene that changed the feeling and meaning of the film. Moses can be seen following three lost sheep up onto Mount Sinai and falls victim to a landslide and gets a bump upon the head, knocking him unconscious. He regains consciousness and sees a boy standing near him. The boy does not look unlike a Tibetan monk. Moses by that time is fully immersed, only his face visible, in some form of a swamp and the boy will not help him out. Moses learns that this boy claims to be God in some way and the script includes a brief “I am”. The scene cuts and Moses has a damaged leg and is seen with his wife who tells him the experience was the result of his wounds. Moses apparently received a bump upon the head and saw God? Funny enough, he receives another bump on the head when he is swimming out of the closing of the red sea. Even stranger, Moses’ wife sounds like an atheist attempting to convince him it was a delusion and asks him what kind of God would take him away from his family.
Somehow, I am not that convinced the child in the film was a depiction of God. The kid could be a mere portrayal of a delusion or just some kid from another Country? Or someone who happened to know a Tsunami was taking place 500 miles away and just used Moses to play kids games? I don’t know, but whatever it was, those scenes are weird.
Throughout the movie the Biblical narrative was replaced with a lesser script and the obvious historical changes. The film stank of a secular and atheist attempt to re-interpret the Biblical narrative. Outside of the Miriam scene and the scenes where Moses was with his wife, there was no language or terms which made impact. The outstanding Mosaic plea of “Let my people go” was not present in this version. There was no “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. Aaron was was not present with Moses and they replaced Moses’ staff with a sword. They even reworked and twisted Moses killing the Egyptian and almost ignored Joshua altogether.
It is also worth noting that in this film, Moses calves out the Ten Commandments on the tablets of stone.
The film is little more than a secular attempt to play about with the Bible and plant mind seeds into a whole generation of movie goers. But somehow, I think in our heart of hearts, we know this movie is not historically or Biblically true. Its just a movie and maybe little more than that.
Although I am not criticizing Ridley Scott as a director or the actors abilities, I am pointing out these issues purely from a historical, Biblical and Theological context. I don’t think the film mocks the Bible, and it seems to have degrees of respect, but it certainly is not a faithful rendition. Altogether, outside of the fantastic settings, clothing and look of the film, it was probably one of the most UN-Biblical, Biblical films ever made. Which is a shame. It could have been magnificent. If only they would have let go of the new atheist bigotry and embraced more of the Greater narrative.
So here we stand, at the gate of the secular palace and we speak once again for those in captivity and slavery to a secularisation of the West “Let my people go”.
The atheist who printed a splended Bible
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Issues with Christianity in England today, new atheism, The Bible on July 7, 2014
Title page of Baskerville’s 1763 Bible.
Public domain
In 1763, Cambridge University printer and atheist John Baskerville produced a fine Bible. This Bible is known as ‘The Baskerville Bible’. Tis a fine piece of work and not merely because of its contents, but due to the fine clarity of the fonts.
The story goes that Baskerville wanted to produce a Bible which people could read with absolute clarity and not those old Gothic type prints that can be found throughout many early English Bibles.
The Baskerville Bible was first printed in Folio (Cambridge edition) in 1763. He also printed at Birmingham. His work, although criticized by some, became an inspiration to many, including Benjamin Franklin.
John Baskerville died in 1775 and according to his wishes, his body was buried in unconsecrated grounds but his memory lived on. It is believed by many that his name was borrowed by Arthur Conan Doyle for the title of the Sherlock Holmes mystery, The Hound of the Baskervilles.
Today, many prints of these original Bibles still exist. Having looked at a good number of these prints in research and devotion, I am thankful to Baskerville for this work and these prints, they are indeed a sight for sore eyes. And inspiring too! Since these days, at least on the surface, atheists appear to be against the Bible and Christianity, but such is not the case with established history. For this version furthered the printing of Bibles for centuries, even to this day.
Just goes to show, that God can even use atheists to accomplish His will on earth.
A Darwinian fish
Posted by simon peter sutherland in new atheism, Science and evolution on June 30, 2014
The Darwinian fish
Photo by Simon Peter Sutherland
Recently I was in a certain place looking at a certain parked car, it was red and quite bright. On the boot I noticed a sign, it read “Darwin”.
The name itself was encased within a fish, a long established historical Christian symbol.
Usually, the name of our Lord “Jesus” can be found within the centre of the symbol, but this chunk of folly is clear demonstration of how Darwin is being used as a weapon against Him and His people.
But it is a pretty blunt weapon, I might add.
The name of Jesus is the highest name on earth. The Jesus of the four Gospels is the center of Christianity and indeed, the entire Bible. It is for this reason why the inner nature of man, does attack and misuse His name. Repeatedly I might add.
We hear Jesus’ name blasphemed all over this world, from television, on the street, and almost everywhere that people gather. Strange isn’t it, that no one hears the names of central figures in other religions used in such a way?
Jesus is a friend of sinners and Judas Iscariot is said to have been His friend. Yet Judas was a materialist and could not see the Truth, but only material things. These material signs are just one of many visual demonstrations of how Christianity is being attacked and one can buy them pretty much anywhere. The coins have been cast and the Judas’ of this world are betraying the very one who died for them, and just like Judas, they betray Him for materialism and financial gain.
Darwin’s ideas are not a great problem to me. I understand the position he held and view much of it as theory based upon certain observable facts. I don’t think or see his ideas as compatible with Christianity or the Bible, but I acknowledge that some do not see things that way. However, Darwin’s 19th century position is one side of the coin, the modern view or interpretation of Darwin’s ideas is another side or thing altogether, it is extreme to say the least. One could wonder if they are even of the same coin? The political and so-called ‘scientific’ movement which is certainly using Darwin’s ideas to push religion out of the state, is one, I think, that was established some time ago with distinct design and manipulation toward Christianity. Moses was indeed a big problem to them and he still is.
Richard Dawkins is one of the 20th and possibly 21st centuries most popular spokespersons of evolution theory and probably the person on whom the dice has fallen. But there are other people beside him, many more are attempting to arise. Thus, there is a great deal more going on with all of this evolutionary science than meets the eye.
The “Darwin” fish sticker is somewhat extreme in my view. It is immature, disrespectful and directed at Christianity. Which when it is all said and done, shows how deluded the ‘Theistic evolutionists’ really are. By embracing evolution as compatible with the Bible, is not embracing God’s way of doing things, but an opposite system.
So, Atheist readers, permit me to close with a little rhetorical offering, for your worldview is fine with me, just as long as you don’t bore me with you fairy tales. If you want to deny the Truth of why we are here and why we were born, then so be it. If you are content to have Darwin as your savior, the deliverer who has redeemed you from religion and set you free and taken you further away from the promise land and into the world of sin. Well, alright for you, “each to their own” as they say. But I tell you this; Darwin is not my savior, nor my prophet and Origin of Species is not my Bible. My Bible is the Word of God and my Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ and He has redeemed me from the law of sin and death and has given me and all His people, eternal life.
I am content to follow my “sky daddy” as you say, and you are content to follow your “fish-daddy” as I say. Let us see in a million years which one has truly saved you.
As for me fellow humans, I know that God will win in the end and I will follow Jesus. For as John Newton once said; “I’m a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior“.
Steven Weinberg and the scientific agenda to destroy religion
Posted by simon peter sutherland in new atheism, Science and evolution on January 9, 2014
“I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” Steven Weinberg.
(Beyond belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival. 5 November 2006)
Bible trodden under foot
© 2014 Simon Peter Sutherland
The above words, can and do display a form of scientific totalitarianism. I say this because any attempt to destroy some system of belief or choice of persons, is a denial of rights. I do not want religion to be weakened or destroyed. Many of us like religion and the things it represents and I for one am not going to be told whether or not I can live in a world that has no beliefs in providence, design or meaning.
Perhaps it is strange that Weinberg’s words are wrapped up in a claim of ‘Reason’ when it is nothing of the kind! If it were a claim to reason, he would not try to inspire people to go out into the world and weaken religion. Even Jesus in His great commission never inspired other systems of thought to be destroyed but merely left alone, that is if the hearers rejected His Truth.
I think Weinberg’s words clearly present manifestations of an organised agenda to replace ‘religion’ with some form of ‘science’ or so called science, at least the familiar science which people lay hold of ‘evolution Theory’. Using it, to replace God or Church.
I think secularism is just another word for bigotry against Christianity.
It is a historical fact that the Christian church or at least the Roman Catholic church has many enemies from the past. There is a certain branch of ‘science’ that has been at war with the Christian church since the 16th century. In that context, science is at war with religion. And as each century has passed, each generation has manifested this war in different forms.
Today we have this undercurrent movement which is covertly using Darwin’s theory to destroy the Christian church, primarily true Christians who believe the Word of God which these people tread upon. When I say true Christians I mean those who believe everything that Jesus and His Word communicate. It is they whom these so-called scientists hate.
I have no doubt whatsoever that this huge organisation (which may have no name) has an agenda to destroy Christianity. I have no doubt either that they are using every medium possible, every critical line of scholarship, archaeology, entertainment and every celebrity face they can conjure up to do this dirty work.
Evidence in their eyes is just another way of saying ‘we have proven you wrong’. But the problem is that when an agenda is presented before evidence or ‘science’ whatever that term may define, then it puts the finds of this certain ‘science’ in question? For example; when an artifact is discovered, it must be interpreted, but when three or four scholars explore the artifact, one can fine that they rarely agree on its interpretation.
But this is not the case with evolutionary scientists. They agree with each other and stand together like sheep going to be sheered. It reminds me of Nazi Germany or some other totalitarian movement which covertly gains power yet turns when it has it . It is a suspect movement to say the least, rather like a verbal war. Especially when certain establishments within ‘science’ or a scientific community are so clearly at war with religion?
A point I think that is worthy of consideration is that science is not at war with religion or the Bible, but rather it is the successors of the 19th century evolutionists through to the modern 21st century evolutionary scientists who are both openly and covertly at war with God and His book. They are the ones who are treading upon the Bible with their muddy boots and are using the dirt of the earth in their smear campaign.
However, the facts themselves prove that ‘science’ should not be at war with religion or Christianity in any way and that outside of Dawkins’ theories of the retina and so forth, life itself spells out intelligent design. Thus, the facts are on our side, but not when the facts are in the hands of modern orthodox evolutionary scientists and their hypothetical theories.
It is suspect and cultish to say the least when any organisation agrees consistently with itself and its teachers and when any person from within begins to disagree with them or progresses into theism or Creationism by seeing the evidence of God scientifically, they are excommunicated from the so-called academic or scientific community and denied the role of being a scientist, thus, the followers of these communities are preprogrammed or brainwashed against them.
But so many arguments presented, including Richard Dawkins’ retina argument, are designed, presented and researched with the aim of refuting ‘Creationism’. Which when it is all said and done, any of us could assemble the matter of fact and twist the facts according to that agenda. People begin to twist facts to suite theories and not theories to suite facts.
Thus, when an agenda is manifested and people are in the lab, what could happen when DNA is at the hands of evolutionary scientists who have set themselves up to “weaken religion”. No one can contradict them, even within the scientific community, since, I reiterate if anyone moves away from evolutionary science and sees evidence of creation, that person is told to reject that notion and if they do not, their funding is shut off and they are cast out of that establishment.
Thus, beyond the surface and public face of evolutionary science, the witnesses and facts only point to one thing; evolutionary science is not open even remotely to the concept of creation and neither does it remotely consider the possibility that Moses got it right. It is clear that they have brainwashed a generation of young and middle age people into thinking as they want them to think. They have made their creed and allegiance and if anyone rejects it, they are no longer part of that community.
The question is; do these people really believe that their fantasies of destroying Christianity will make the world a better place? That if they succeed in reducing the prominence of the Christian church, that a fundamentalist intolerant religion will not step in its place and reap the rewards?
Do they really believe that men in their depraved hearts will walk hand in hand in peace? If so, then they are the ones guilty of believing in fairy tales.
Caesar’s Messiah – Joseph Atwill’s Covert Messiah conspiracy theory
Posted by simon peter sutherland in new atheism on October 11, 2013
“The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from truth and turn aside to myths” 2 Timothy 4: 3-4
So then, here we go again, more nonsense, more heresy. This time the anti Biblical scam comes from America in the form of Joseph Atwill. A so-called Bible scholar who has written a new book, and is doing a tour, which, bless good olde England, the so-called scholar comes to London.
This time we have yet another mocker claiming he has ‘evidence’ that the Biblical account of Jesus is a made up story, a “sophisticated” propaganda tool to pacify subjects of the Roman Empire? As if, Rome need do such a thing? They just slaughtered people rather than pacified them.
These days, especially since the rising of the new atheist movement and the pope of atheism, Richard Dawkins, one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, I am often suspicious of just what it is they get up to in secret. The present masquerade of atheism is to pretend they are out for the good of society and dress themselves up as ‘secularists’. They do this because the new atheist movement has messed up and failed.
Oh dear, a lot of people now say “atheism…that’s boring…that was last year”.
In their coverted response to this, the new atheist covert leaders present the mind seed to their sheep and say, we should now call ourselves secularists.
In doing this we, I have seen many things that these people get up to in the dark. Recently we have heard of scientific attempts to claim that Christianity or religion is a mental illness, something Dawkins touched on in his pathetic excuse for a book, “The God delusion”. Now his myths are covertly propagated further by Katherine Taylor, who claims ‘Religious fundamentalism’ may be categorised as a mental illness.
Here we have some key words to note concerning this man Mr Atwill. The first being the word “sophisticated”. A favourable word of the new atheist movement. Dawkins uses it often despite the fact that Theologians rarely use it. Dawkins does, with his term “Sophisticated Theologians” meaning those who pass the test with him and those inconsistent Theologians who embrace ‘Theistic evolution’. We find this word “sophisticated” involved In this fairy tale theory not only by Mr Atwill but by another so called “Biblical Scholar” and new atheist Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou of Exeter University. A woman who denies that any of the Bible is actually historical, but contains “sophisticated” stories made up by very clever people. Yet when it comes to the Qur’an, she leans somewhat in its favour. Strange that. Very suspect.
I would not be at all surprised just how far this new atheist movement will take things, even to the point of funding people to go into scholarship, media, tv, music, just with the aim of using their voice to destroy peoples faith in the Bible and in God and Jesus.
But this theory by Atwill, does not, as far as I understand it argue that a certain Jesus did exist, since anyone with any knowledge of history knows that reality, but that His story was changed by the Romans and the Jesus of the New Testament was made up? The conspiracy theory claims that His story is similar to Titus. Yet, although Atwill claims this, he clearly has no problem believing what is written about Titus and what is written by Josephus, but not about the Jesus which is consistent with Christianity or the writings of early Christians. Odd. How inconsistent?
This is clearly the stuff that ‘conspiracy theories’ are made up of. Some of them, absolute nonsense!
Anyhow, it seems obvious to me that what is really going on is that there are more than a few enemies of Christianity and Christians out there in the big bad world. Clearly the West is up against Christianity because of the situation in the Middle East. It is not about truth, but agenda. They have a lot going on behind the scenes. They even have a lot of contacts, money, power, media, universities, and so forth through which they propagate their ideas by planting mind seeds and when that fails they employ the medium of ‘covert hypnosis’. Taking the methods of people of old and turning things good, into something bad. That works quite easily, I imagine on upon nations of people who, when its all said and done, sit on the fence concerning ‘Religion’.
This is why Atwill claims that he is not out to destroy Christianity, but that his work will give half-believers a reason to make a clean break. So here, we have an agenda, rather like Dawkins who markets himself towards Christians who either do not really believe what they believe or they sit on the fence.
Atwell is closely linked with British new atheist, Kenneth Humpreys, famous for his “Jesus never existed” fairy tale book and website.
The nutty professor, Richard Dawkins promotes and favours Atwell too. Interesting isn’t it. It is strange is not that I have been saying for a while that Richard Dawkins and his loyal flock use ‘covert hypnosis’ to win people over to their fairy tale arguments and myths. Here we have a nice little attempt to swing things around by reverse psychology by claiming the Biblical account of Jesus is a Roman account employed using ‘covert’ methods. No surprise the modern fairy tale uses the covert hypnosis which they themselves apply by calling the attempt “Covert Messiah”. And guess what, you can even buy tickets. They make a lot of money these people, like St Peter in 2 Peter 2: 3 warned they would.
Anyhow, no one can win this odd debate with these people, since they have sworn allegiance to a higher force, but what can be done is that I, we, you can appeal to each other and let the facts and historical written evidence help you decide which is truly the fairy tale.
We have had secularists using evolution theory against religion and it has not worked. The leaders of the Church of England are smart enough to know that embracing ‘Theistic evolution’ is better option than causing brainwashed people to completely reject the Christian faith, in favour of embracing the apparent facts of ‘major evolutionary change’ by the medium of scientific classroom, college, culture and lectures of persuasion.
We have even had new atheist, British illusionist, mentalist and hypnotist and friend of Dawkins Derren Brown planting mind seeds that suggest God as the ultimate placebo.
They have tried their version of reason and failed to convince learned Christians of their fairy tales, and stumped, so they have to keep on trying new things, mind games and tricks. The facts remain, the Biblical authors have already warned the Elect that these times will come, that people will claim wisdom and in doing so have become fools. The Bible already warns us that the world hates Jesus and His people and they hate the truth. Thus, when great organisations come up against Christianity in an attempt to demolish ‘Church and State’ and especially those ‘Evangelicals and Creationists’ there really is no end of knowing what it is they might do. But whatever they do, there is nothing they can do. We, the children of God are elect and the promise we have been given can never be destroyed, even when Rome itself comes up against us, nothing can separate us from the eternal truth of Jesus Christ. And really, no matter what they say about us and Jesus, they cannot for one moment take away the Truth from the Truth.
With that thought in mind, Roll on ‘Covert Messiah’ roll on ‘Da Vinci Code’. You will be forgotten in time. For, your gun is firing blanks. But my cannon of scripture has enough ammunition in it to blast this nonsense all the way back to America.
Richard Dawkins silent concerning ‘Evolution vs God’?
Posted by simon peter sutherland in new atheism on September 23, 2013
On August 6th 2013, YouTube channel ‘The way of the Master’ published the new film ‘Evolution vs God’.
This film challenges the popular theory of Darwinian evolution, primarily the theory of ‘Macroevolution’.
This film has now received 775,695 views on YouTube.
According to the reports, the New Zealand born evangelist Ray Comfort has not yet received any direct response from Atheist activist and Darwinian evolutionist, Richard Dawkins. The apparent silence has come despite repeated offers for an open response.
In the film, Ray Comfort interviews and asks a number of leading evolutionary scientists in America for direct evidence for ‘Macroevolution’. Outside of claims based upon speculative ideas and theories, no evidence could be given.
Perhaps the only main responses Darwinians and atheist activists have offered are a number of criticisms published on YouTube, which are for the most part little more than ‘ad homimen’ posts and re-affirmations of ‘Macraevolution’ with no direct evidence for ‘Macroevolution’.
Perhaps this noisey silence tells us a great deal about the true condition of the theory of evolution and Richard Dawkins? The first being that there is a number of ways defeat can be seen, even without words. One way of responding to someone who you consider stronger than yourself is to say nothing, and merely go one doing as you did before.
Clearly Richard Dawkins is doing that.
Perhaps Darwin’s time is up and maybe it is time for truck loads of Evangelical Christians in England to purchase copies of ‘Evolution vs God’ and spread them across the UK, at the University of Manchester, Cambridge, Oxford, Scotland, Exeter and so forth.
Perhaps even give free copies out to the Liberal bishops within the Church of England? That would be good wouldn’t it. Maybe even David Cameron could receive a copy too?
Transformation from “bigots” to ‘Dinousaurs’ Nick Clegg dig’s at opponents of redefining marriage
Posted by simon peter sutherland in England issues, Issues with Christianity in England today, new atheism, Reform on September 19, 2013
Yesterday Nick Clegg giving a speech at his Liberal Democrats Conference and in it he referred to those who stood for the traditional view of marriage as “dinosaur opponents”.
This comment was not made in any context on his part or historic reference to dinosaurs as creatures of importance or anything like that, but a very childish and immature insult on his part toward those people who are genuinely concerned about upholding a historic and proper view of marriage and freedom. Clearly Mr Clegg likens people who uphold to traditional views of marriage as ancient obscure beings who are from the past.
The immature and childish insult given by Nick Clegg offer the people of Britain a further insight into just how childish British Politicians can be at times. Perhaps it just goes to show how much a mess Britain is in, when its apparent leaders embrace such immaturity that they have to insult people who do not agree with them, while at the same time profess to be Liberal in the name of democracy? Clearly liberalism is just another word for a default position, which embraces anyone but those who do not fit in with their worldview.
As if the people of Britain do not tire enough at seeing the leaders of this country arguing week after week like teenagers in the house of Lords, Mr Clegg feels now to insult millions of people in a childish non-intellectual way because they do not agree with his world-view.
Is it not enough that people who stand up for their right to defend traditional marriage have to put up with being labelled ‘bigots’ as victims of some kind of stupid game which uses fear based words to accomplish its aim rather than plain reason?
Is that democracy? Well, in order to find out the answer to that, we Protestants should be consulted, after all democracy in Britain came from us in the first place.
Nick Clegg should really be more careful with what he says and he should remember that the wind of the air and the tide of the sea can change direction very quickly. People are generally like fish, they swim in shoals with the tide, and when the tide changes, they go with the flow.
Mr Clegg should remember that time is only but a moment and what is present now will later be past and what is seen as modern now, will later be history.
The times will change Mr Clegg, and they are changing, and when the time of this generation is over, a new generation will come and when all our bones are in the ground, a new people will rise up and the winds of change will fill the streets.
Mr Clegg should really have a care, for come election day he will find, he may need these dinosaurs.
New poster for “Martyr George Marsh” Documentary
Posted by simon peter sutherland in Documentaries, new atheism on May 27, 2013
Documentary poster for Martyr George Marsh
John Lennon on the theory of evolution
Posted by simon peter sutherland in new atheism, Science and evolution on December 13, 2012
“I don’t believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren’t monkeys changing into men now? It’s absolute garbage. It’s absolutely irrational garbage, as mad as the ones who believe the world was made only four thousand years ago, the fundamentalists. That and the monkey thing are both as insane as the other… The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin.”
John Lennon
Interview 1980
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the new atheism category.
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 