Reading some bloke's comments ...

I found this comment on the following atheist's blog web site: (www.geoffarnold.com/mt-archives/000349.html)

'fby, your feable attempt to minimize the reality of the statistical improbability of life occuring spontateously is comical. 1/1000? If it were anywhere near 1/1000, life would be springing up all over. In the last analysis I saw (this was a few years ago, I admit), you would have to put over 20 zeroes behind the 1 to begin to get close to how low the probability is. How could anybody put their faith in a belief system that is so improbable? This is why Flew changed - it is only logical to do so when faced with the facts.

It is clear that you have your own religion, and that's ok. You have put your faith in a scientifically impossible fantasy, while most others put their faith in an unprovable deity. Just two different versions of religion/faith that can not be proven and both seem illogical to the objective observer.'

---Kcbmc (kcbmc@yahoo.com)

In a latter comment, he also added:

'You are coming very close to the brink upon which Mr. Flew stood not too long ago. Humanly speaking, 1 chance in 10*20 is the same thing as "impossible". In scientific terms we try not to use the word "impossible", however. Your belief in such an event puts you at the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty - the belief in a theory that is beyond plausibility.

It is this confrontation with intellectual honesty upon which Mr. Flew changed his position. The level of absurdity is too much for a thinking individual to sustain - lest you fall into the catogory of delusional or denial.'

What's the deal with ex-atheist Anthony Flew believing in a God now?

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

This link is to a secular, atheistic/humanistic web site (just check the buttons at the base if you don't think so). Their article, which is rather damning in places and seems a little unfair towards the very end at least, frames the basics of Anthony Flew's relatively recently recantation of athiesm, to embrace instead a rather deistic concept of God, since he has yet to experience or see evidence for personally any 'special revelation' (Christian, Islamic, Jewish or otherwise).

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html

This on the other hand, is a Christian web site also documenting this situation.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

And this is an actual interview, published Winter 2004 in a journal.

Why am I writing about it? Simple. Things change. People change. Science and knowledge changes. The way we see the Bible may also change, although the Bible itself does not. The way we view evil, good and right and wrong may also change with our growing understanding of life and what questions we even should be asking of it.

Keep your mind open. Study the facts. Hear what others have to say, especially if your current belief system is based firmly in the camp of 'I haven't ever seen it, and papers argue that your understanding of what it is that you claim to know, is faulty or false'.

Un PC dreams?

The funny thing about dreams is that they don't seem to feel the need to apply any particular standard to them - even your own mental standards. Political correctness, belief, knowledge or cencorship seems banished well and truely from the realms of dreaming.

Two nights ago, I dreamt a lot of varied things. At one point though, I actually awoke in surprise at what I was dreaming!

There was a football stadium of some sort, quite a large one. Filled with people all sitting or standing in the rows. It was packed and something was about to begin in the stadium.

Before it did though, over the tannoy system one man was given the honour of opening the ceremony (why I do not know). He was in the crowd and pre selected obviously.

He said into his microphone, 'Let's open our Bibles...to John chapter 1 verse 15'. I think I am remembering this right. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html

Surprisingly, almost everyone had a book, though not all. Many opened them and looked at the page. Some then closed the book after looking down at it.

Then the man with the mic' started to try to read. He made some noises that sounded semi arabic, but was clearly not properly spoken arabic either. It was garbeled and struggling attempts to read and understand. The word 'allah' was used several times as he read on, trying ...

Then he stopped and looked up, horror on his face. He then spoke once again in perfect english, as before:

"Wait a minute ... what is this? This is England!" He shut the book and sat down. I awoke with a start.

I actually don't think this dream was at all about dissing the Islamic book of faith. I think it was a statement about the realities of faiths plural in this nation, and a possible orwellian glance into a possible future scenario. Quite clearly this man's Bible was not written in english, you see.

Anyway, I don't want to read too much into it and I certainly am not attacking anybody. But I liked how un PC the dream was, and how it caused me to question what it could be about.

--

The following night, I dreamt again many things. In one, myself, Jazz, Allan and Kelly were in some strange, dark place with houses where you could walk on the roofs/flat tops. The enemy people/aliens were everywhere. I attacked several with a base ball bat and then we all escaped on the ferry ...

Strange. Certainly not reading much into that, since it was totally mixed up!

A concious robot says Dawkins was wrong ...

There again ... he also begins his piece on his own blog by stating that religion and faith is all 'blind faith' and not questioned, that in fact that is what faith is. In this, he (or she - though who cares if it's a collection of atoms!) is very wrong, and this is not debatable because faith itself says that it is to be tested. What am I talking about now? Christianity. The Bible. Here in follows my comment on his/her blog. I do not know if the original will be published, but it was non inflammatory so it ought to be, in the interests of fairness:

'N Reinhardt has obviously got a shoe up his rear concerning anyone who dares to have such a thing as faith. I pity anyone with that much blatent bile in his life - according to his own evolutionary faith, his bitterness will accordingly carry him to an earlier grave than I, and therefore screw his genes in doing so. Ho hum.

Your definition of faith at the very top of your article however, is actually incorrect. Other than that, I agree with much of your article although as a Christian I see things through different glasses/biases to your own.

Faith for a selection of individuals is blind, but for the vast majority of us who have faith in something, it is based on a plethora of testable, repeatable (in some cases) and logically understandable causes such as personal experience, science, history, geography, art, music, teaching, evidences and many other factors coming into play.

For myself, I was supernaturally healed and have found God to be real, speak and evidences of His hand in the world and on the lives of others who I have met and watched. It is far from a blind faith, although I also accept it cannot ultimately be 'proven' to a laboratory degree. It was never meant to be, however to begin your paper by agreeing with Dawkins that sweepingly so, all religion and all faith (here you make no distinctions) is wrong and blind, is based on never questioning anything - is incorrect.

Did you know that modern science is almost exclusively built on the backbone of Christianity and in certain cases Islamic early science, driven by the monotheistic belief in a supreme creator who created order? Did you also realise that the Bible doesn't just ask one, it commands one to test all things - including itself, faith, reason and everything else out there? I cannot speak for other faiths but I can tell you that Christianity - the real Christianity - commands that people are to test it and not blindly believe in it. Because a handful do, doesn't mean it should be wrongly called 'blind faith'.

---

This is convinient at best and at worst - intellectually dishonest as it errects a strawman that an atheist can then attack, easily topple to make himself feel better. The real thing is a little different and has yet to be toppled in this great age of logic, science & reason. In fact God is on the move just as much if not more, including within the lives of many great men of science and understanding.

Only eating chips and sausages?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006020536,00.html

If you are a fussy eater ... or scared of ops, think again and start eating better.

It's a fact.

I feel really uncomfortable. Really.

'Gag' image

My Husband drew this and thought it rather funny. Obviously poking fun and not trying to make any serious point ... but then again everyone's not serious and sometimes it's good to see exactly how much of a sense of humour 'the other lot' seem to have.

Can you take a chuckle?

Dawkins gets examined - and found wanting

At last! Someone with the brass in their sporen if you'll excuse the crassness, to challenge Dawkins on his own territory - intellectual thinking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1681002,00.html

Before anyone cries foul, no this is not a religious or Christian article. You may notice it's from the Guardian, which is anything but a religious rag itself.

I was so pleased with this article's honesty, firm nature and free-thinking, that I wrote this to the author of the piece:

Dear Madeleine,

Can I just thank you for not being afraid to stand up and write something critical (science = knowledge and knowledge comes through critical awareness and thinking, right?) of Richard Dawkins' work of late. I appreciate your thoughtful, firm and ethical piece in which you wrote fairly and with a mind of critical thought – not dogma for any particular mindset. After all, one of the great faiths of the world and the most followed, Christianity, has it said in the Bible it holds to, to ‘Test all things’. Something Dawkins repeatedly denies Christians believe in or practice, and something which may I be so bold as to assert that quite clearly, he does not practice himself in certain areas, despite being an obviously highly intelligent man.

In exposing his dogmatic hatred for religion and especially Christianity in the UK and USA (where it is seeing the most problems, unlike in Asia, Africa and South America where it is exploding), you have placed the ball firmly in his court for once. So few ever do this because he is seen as an ‘intellectual giant’. I would like to see him step up and prove some of his own assertions through science, thinking and evidence rather than statements such as calling Christians who believe in evolution ‘Useful idiots’ (I believe that is one of his).

Again, thank you for your good article. Let’s have more challenges to the status quo whether it be religious, atheistic or anything in the middle! The Bible apparently isn’t afraid of cross-examination; let’s see Dawkins join that level of commitment to intellectual honesty!

If you liked (or didn't like) the article for whatever reason, feel free to write to the author at m.bunting@guardian.co.uk

Commenting on Bono & the church

http://ircontent.blogspot.com/

Recently I've been commenting on this blog. If it's of interest to you to see the traditions of man kicked out of the church, or if Bono was foolish to wear a headband at a recent rock concernt with the word 'COEXIST' written on it using the three symbols of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, then click on the link.

Remember to keep comments educated, clean and point-based.

Felt sick and then it got worse

There's something worse than feeling sick and being dragged off to watch a very nice movie at the IMAX ... which unfortunately you didn't feel that well before going to.

That something is having been told earlier in the day when asking what people were doing (I didn't feel well ... didn't really want to go out anyway) that someone had to leave and shrugging or whatever (since it's not my house in question it didn't effect me), that when you then ask the person whose supposed to be helping out and sorting that person whose leaving out, have they sorted it so they'l be able to get away by when it was asked that get get away by, they then blow their freaking lid at you, say that it's YOUR idea that the person leave (when it's NOT), say that you are 'used' sexually speaking (when you were married a virgin and are monogamous), saying that you are a lesbian, saying that you are around your parents house (shock gasp) more than anyone else, ever, and saying that it's none of your business, when you're quite happy to keep it that way but it is THEIR business and THEY haven't bothered to sort it out and in fact have gone and only agreed to lift someone else completely different home from Bristol Airport *at the same time*!!!

Naturally, I ended up getting quite cross at this reaction to what was a very reasonable question, something like 'Dad said so and so's meant to like, have been sorted to get home, but what you said just now hinted that you haven't sorted it at all, so what's the deal?'

Hopefully someone else sorted the individual in question out to get home from where my parents live, because HE certainly HASN'T sorted it and clearly can't handle anyone speaking to him about anything concerning this whole thing right now.

However, I don't have to listen to rudeness. Questions are not rude, and reminders are not rude, especially when it wasn't your 'dumb ass rule' in the first place you're reminding about but the owner of the house in question!

New year thoughts

'Standing alone when within a crowd, looking up and around, just wondering. Is anybody getting this? ANY of this? Does any of it make any sense?'

2005 was a mixed year, but over all on paper it was actually a rather poor one. Highlights were working with Konami and Hothouse Creations, Faith Camp, getting kelly back, improving things with chris, improving myself also, working at the Foyer, Ken wrestling on the same card as Mick Foley performed, working with Entertainmentwise.com and of course, God.

Here's hoping that my 'year of achievement' in 2006 will reign more mightily!