Abandon reason all ye who enter here.
What do you think of this little gem of reverse and perverse logic from John Dickson published in the SMH?
Referring to the existence of Jesus and the virgin birth etc, he declares that in spite of Atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens and others the "core historical realities are not easily swept away". This is a trick with words. In fact they aren't realities until proven.
Further on he states "It is true that there is no corroborating evidence for the finer details of the Christmas story but it is wrong and wrongheaded to turn this into evidence that they are untrue". Well John, there is also no corroborating evidence that Elvis still lives. Do you think we should believe that too? When there is no evidence for something there is no reason to believe it.
His next bit of illogical nonsense concerns the virgin birth. He tells us that this "involves philosophical assumptions" and "If you hold that the laws of nature are the only things regulating the Universe then no amount of evidence could convince you that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit".
Wrong again John. I and many other Atheists do hold that the laws of nature are the only things regulating the Universe. However if you could produce genuine evidence that the virgin birth did take place we would be convinced. It is the evidence that matters to us. Have you got some? Where is it? Show it to us. Genuine evidence would convince us!
The article is so silly I think it really should have been placed in the cartoon section.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/despite-the-sceptics-t...
British Humanist Society News
- Gove's pledge on 'extremist' schools must be backed by statutory powers, cautions BHA
- BHA contributes to children's rights review
- BHA: The campaign against 'faith Academies' goes on
- NHS funding of homeopathy puts patient choice above evidence of effectiveness
- Best way to improve Sex and Relationships Education is to make it compulsory
Children will be children.
Children will be children.
I've just read his article.
I've just read his article. It is even worse than you say. Here is the silliest bit re virgin birth:
"If however, like most Australians, you accept the probability of a law giver behind those natural laws, then such an idea is not insurmountable. After creating a Universe, fashioning another 23 chromosomes would be a walk in the park for the Almighty."
Ah I guess that proves it. It just puzzles me however why their supernatural being would want to play such a clever trick in the first place.
Why bother with sexual reproduction for the rest of us?
Is Dickson saying that is proof that it actually happened that way?
Is this what passes for education and logic among Dickson and his crowd? If they have nothing better to offer than this rubbish let's not even bother to debate with them.
The point John Dickson is
The point John Dickson is making is that there are things beyond the laws of nature. We can call them the laws of God, the things you insist on denying.
The creator is capable of doing anything. He is not bound by the laws of nature.
That is the explanation of virgin birth.
In no way is that
In no way is that an
Submitted by trulyfree (not verified) on Mon, 04/01/2010 - 10:16.
In no way is that an explanation. You might as well declare that you can fly or that Pat Buchanan is made of blancmange. Show me the evidence and I'll believe it. Until you can prove any single one of your ludicrous claims, I will continue base my beliefs on those things for which there is some shred of proof.
The 'core historical
The 'core historical realities' were merely signs of the Messiah as held by Old Testament scribes. Jesus is as mythical as Hercules and far less fun.
Father Bob, a popular priest
Father Bob, a popular priest in Melbourne, said the other night on radio that rationality wasn't everything. Sure, lunacy is important.
Post new comment