 |
| Posted by a man who accuses atheists of bigotry |
In an article in
Christian Today, the Reverend David A Robertson, Moderator of the
Free Church of Scotland (aka the “Free Kirk” or “Wee Frees”),
ostensibly asks “Is Christianity Regressive?”, which purports to
be an examination of Christianity, but in reality turns into a tirade
against atheists, whom he infers are bigoted and even racist.
I have crossed
swords with Rev Robertson many times before; I have tried to reason
with him, I have even tried to be friendly towards him. In the end
there is no reasoning with this man, due to his own arrogance, his
own bigotry, but most of all, the way he attempts to twist and
misrepresent the words of others. With quote-mining, statements and
data taken completely out of context aplenty, his article in CT is a
prime example of this.
Almost from the go,
Rev Robertson's attack upon atheists – along with misrepresentation
– starts in the second paragraph, when he states that philosopher
John Grey was mocking his fellow atheists when he said “the grand
march of secular reason would continue, with more and more societies
joining the modern west in marginalising religion. Someday, religious
belief would be no more important than personal hobbies or ethnic
cuisines.” David does not give a source for that quote – another
favourite ploy of the quote miner – but no matter, for I have found
it, and shall link it below. The statement comes from an article in
The Guardian, dated 3 March 2015, titled “What scares the new
atheists” and the statement which David quoted was not mocking
atheists but actually was speaking of the reaction of many to the
9/11 terrorist attacks. So right away, we see that Rev Robertson has
quote-mined a statement and twisted it for his own ends. There's
plenty more to come.
Why Rev Robertson
should quote John Grey is pretty obvious. Grey does indeed describe
himself as an atheist, but he is well-known for attacking other
atheists and for a dislike of organised atheism, which he sees every
bit as odious and dangerous as organised religion. Whilst I don't
agree with much of what John Grey says, on that matter I not only
wholly agree with him, I would suggest that there is no 'atheist
movement', for the simple fact that because every atheist is a
free-thinker who came to the conclusion there is no evidence for the
existence of god(s) through their own experience and observations, it
never can be a concerted movement. A few years ago there was the
advent of 'atheist churches', which I said was a silly idea at the
time for the above reasons, and sure enough there has been extremely
poor take-up of the concept. Atheism is not and cannot ever be an
organised movement because while many atheists may agree on many
things, there's always going to be sticking points where we differ.
Ironically, John Grey's very antipathy towards his fellow atheists is
actually a prime example of this.
But of course,
quoting John Grey's words suits Rev Robertson's agenda of asserting
that atheism is a religion, faith, or creed, which he repeats in the
CT article, in which he calls atheism an “unrealistic faith”.
Religions, religious faiths, and religious creeds have deities they
worship and clergy they look up to for guidance. Entering a
religion needs some rite, whether that be through prayer, baptism,
circumcision, or other ceremony. Within religions there are rules
and codes of conduct expected of the faithful, and if they contravene
these, then individuals can be cast out and cut off from their
religious community. Atheism has no deities to worship, no clergy to
give guidance, there are no rites or ceremonies to become an atheist,
there are no rules or codes of conduct to atheism and all atheist
opinions are valid on their own merits, and because every atheist is
a free-thinker, there will inevitably be disagreements, falling-outs
even, but as there is no official atheist community, no-one can be
cast out and cut off.
I need not ask David
if atheism is a religion, just who is our god, and who are our
clergy, because I asked him that once before – and I still await an
answer.
Hoping he's scored a
point, in the CT article David quotes a Pew Research poll, stating “A
Pew research study shows that by 2050 it is expected that only 13 per
cent of the world's population will not be religious, compared to 16
per cent today. Although the growth of the non-religious is expected
to continue in the West.” Again, no citation for this little gem,
again, I found it myself, and in what is supposed to be an article
about Christianity, what Rev Robertson fails to mention is that
Christianity is indeed on the decline (a 2013 poll in Scotland showed that 39% count themselves as "No Religion" - a rise of 10% in the past decade), while it is Islam
which is the fastest growing religion worldwide. Even then, given
the brutality of some Islamic regimes, one has to ask how many have
converted to Islam through free choice, how many have converted
because it was demanded of them under threat of violence, and how
many Islamic countries are massaging the figures to make it appear
that more or all of their citizens are Muslim. So if David wants to
gloat over the Pew Research poll, I'm afraid it is a Pyrrhic victory,
as his own faith is most certainly on the decline. Meanwhile, even a
cursory look around the internet throws up an increasing number of
very brave atheist commentators and bloggers in oppressive religious
regimes who are demanding to be heard.
But maybe Rev
Robertson has picked up on the fact that Christianity is on the
decline, for it is western society which he blames for this decline,
and it is in that attack that he alludes to atheism and atheists
being racist. Without a citation again, David quotes Thomas Huxley,
known as “Darwin's Bulldog” (not “Bull” as David mistakenly
states) once saying “No rational man, cognizant of the facts,
believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior
of, of the white man.” Again there is no citation when he quotes
the claim oft voiced by theists that H.G. Wells, discussing how
'inferior' races would be treated in New Republic replied “Well,
the world is a world, and not a charitable institution, and I take it
they will have to go. Yes, Huxley and Wells may well have said these
things. In their time one would have been hard-pushed to find a
white person who did not consider non-whites to be inferior. And
meanwhile, Karl Marx kept a slave girl, whom Engels referred to by
the N word, and George Bernard Shaw and Marie Stopes, among others
intellectuals, were firm advocates of the twisted psuedoscience of
Eugenics. And all of the above people have three things in common;
a, they were all wrong, b, they were all speaking and writing in the
late 19th – early 20th century, and c,
they're all long bloody dead. I completely fail to see how the
writings and comments of people from 100 to 150 years ago is in any
way responsible for the rise in atheism and the subsequent fall in
Christianity in modern-day western society.
It may hearten David
a little however to find that not all intellectuals of the Victorian
era had such twisted views. There was one very learned naturalist,
who was a member of the Methodist Church, who was a firm advocate and
campaigner for the abolition of slavery. When this young man went to
study at the University of Edinburgh, he befriended the university's
taxidermist, a freed slave named John Edmonstone, with whom he would
talk at length about animals, and from whom he learned his own
not-inconsiderable taxidermy skills. So who was this fine young
Victorian gentleman who treated all races as equal and befriended a
freed slave? Charles Darwin, that's who.
Why should Rev
Robertson bother about that? Well in his CT article, while attacking
western society, he also spits his vitriol at the Theory of
Evolution, and makes a complete ass of himself in doing so; “My
main problem with this Western narrative is that it is so inherently
smug, superior, self-destructive and indeed racist. It presupposes
that Western Liberal values are at the top of the evolutionary tree.”
Anyone who has studied Darwin's model of the Theory of Evolution,
which is the standard model (because it works, and has been proven
without doubt) knows that evolution is not an upward spiral, and
there is no “top of the evolutionary tree”. I suspect that David
is attempting to claim that evolution is based upon “survival of
the fittest”, which he is taking out of context to mean that only
the strongest survive – I've seen him do just that in public
forums. In fact, the Theory of Evolution says no such thing, and the
phrase “Survival of the fittest” was not even coined by Charles
Darwin (or even Patrick Matthew of Gowrie, who beat him to defining
natural selection by over 30 years), but rather by biologist and
philosopher Herbert Spencer, who was an exponent of Lamarckism, which
mistakenly does see evolution as an upward spiral. Also, when Spencer came out with the phrase, he was adapting his mistaken ideas about evolution to the dog-eat-dog world of economics and suggesting a 'weakest to the wall' philosophy.
Should Rev Robertson
be in any doubt about evolution being about how certain organisms are
best suited to their own particular environment, whereas they would
perish in others, he's more than welcome to jump from one of the Tay
Bridges, see how he does flying on the way down, and then how well he
can breathe at the bottom of the River Tay. On a side note,
whilst he has never openly admitted it, if Rev Robertson doubts
evolution, then it seems he has just outed himself as a young earth
creationist, who believes the Bible account of creation, that the
universe, the earth, and all living things were created in six days,
6000 years ago. Ohhh, that's gonna burn David.
Not sounding in any
way “smug” or “superior” (Heaven forfend), Rev Robertson
makes an apparent concession to 'western society', “Of course every
good Western liberal now deplores racism based on biology, (it's good
that they have finally caught up with the Christian teaching that all
human beings are created equal!), but there is a cultural type of
racism which is still seen in this kind of superior attitude.” I
think that he'll find however, that most of us terrible western
'liberals' do not treat other races as equal 'based on biology', but
rather simply because they are equal. And interestingly enough, this
particular 'liberal' (diehard socialist actually, slightly to the left of Leon
Trotsky) was reading an intriguing article recently which
suggests that the 'out of Africa' hypothesis may be wrong, that
mankind may have come Asia, or that there may have been two rises of
Hominids in the two continents. While I don't accept that, as it's
not yet proven, it does not denigrate Africans (or Asians) one iota,
and I look forward to reading further findings. So much for the
biology argument.
As for Christianity
treating all as equal, that is highly questionable. I am willing to
concede that the Bible in fact makes absolutely no mention of race,
or denigrates any race (unless you count Canaanites as a race, whom
the Old Testament actually calls for the destruction of, and even
Jesus would only help the Canaanite woman after she shamed him into
doing so), the treatment of others by the Christian churches has a
long history of bigotry. Crusaders going to the Holy Land were told
that Mohammedans were devils, not human, and killing them was the
road to Heaven. White Europeans went all around the globe, Bible in
one hand, sword or gun in the other, slaughtering millions of
natives, whom they saw as subhuman, apostate and heathen. Some
Christians boast of the fact they were instrumental in the abolition
of slavery in the UK. So they bloody well should have been,
considering that it was Christians who introduced it in the first
place, and often used the Bible to back up slave ownership. Most
slave owners were 'good Christians' who honestly believed they were
doing Africans a good turn, by giving them jobs to do, a roof over
their heads, and food to eat. But were those same slaves allowed to
attend the same churches as their white masters? With some notable
exceptions, such as the Methodist Church, like hell they were. Well
into the late 20th century, Black Africans under the
apartheid regime in South Africa were forbade from entering the state
churches and had their own churches they had to attend. In the USA
and even in England (particularly in London) even today, there are
churches with predominantly black memberships, purely because they
have been made to feel unwelcome in churches with predominantly white
parishioners.
But according to Rev
Robertson, it is we atheists whom he is alluding are the racists.
Well, I don't take being miscalled lightly, and as David has chosen
to take his gloves off, I see absolutely no reason to keep mine on,
so let's just have a look at where he stands in the bigotry stakes.
Rev Robertson was –
and remains – deeply opposed to the introduction of same-sex
marriage in Scotland. Maintaining that marriage is a Christian
institution, meant for procreation between one woman and one man,
David stated “This is the position that Western Society has held
and on which our culture has been based on for almost 2000 years. I
object to being called homophobic just because I continue to hold to
that view.” (Herald Scotland, 15 October 2014). Of course,
marriage is not purely Christian, and if it were, then Rev Robertson
would have to concede that not only atheists, but those of other
faiths are not married. Furthermore, if it were only for procreation
and bringing up children, then David must as a clergyman refuse to
marry couples who are incapable of having children. Yet, I can go
further. I have actually seen Rev Robertson in a Facebook forum
claim that same-sex marriage would lead to, among other things,
polygamy – which is of course the most common form of marriage
found in the Bible.
LGBT+ campaigners
Dan Littauer of Kaleidoscot, and Peter Tatchell have been among many
voicing their concerns over Rev Robertson's views concerning LGBT+
people.
On 14 June 2015, in
his podcast Quantum of Solas (No.32), Rev Robertson and another Wee
Free preacher launched into a frankly shameful tirade against
transgender people. Concentrating upon Caitlyn Jenner in a podcast
from which I lifted the photo accompanying this article, they
derided, insulted and belittled the transgender former Olympic
athlete, referring to her by her 'deadname' “Bruce”, and male
pronouns, calling her and other transgender people 'delusional',
'wrong-headed thinking', and 'disgusting'.
And if David has a
problem with me copying his SOLAS photograph, perhaps he could inform
me just how many musicians he approached and asked permission to play
their music on his podcasts?
Writing for the
SOLAS Centre for Public Christianity, Rev Robertson in a comment
article in The Scotsman of 11 April 2016, wrote; “Apparently it has
now become the accepted norm amongst our political elites that we get
to choose our own gender, in the same way that we get to choose our
name. We have one assigned to us at birth, and if we don’t like it
later on we can just change it. All of sudden by government dictate
humanity, made male and female in the image of God, has been
shattered into a thousand different genders.”
Then there was the
little incident of the Polish atheist woman who moved into the
village of Rosemarkie, north-east Scotland. The said woman
approached the Scottish Secular Society for help, writing on their
Facebook group forum page, Secular Scotland, that her children
attending a non-denominational state school had been forced to say
prayers before school dinners, effectively saying grace, against her
wishes. Rev Robertson, who was a regular contributor to the group at
the time, immediately rounded upon her, calling her a “white
settler” and ranting about “incomers” attempting to “impose
their will” upon highland culture.
For those not in the
know, “white settler” is an odious hate speech term used by a
tiny minority of Scots bigots, opposed to anyone from outside their
community, mainly English people, moving into their neighbourhood.
It was commonly used in the late 1970s-early 1980s by an anti-English
would-be paramilitary group, “Settler Watch”. When I pointed out
to David that it was a hate speech term, for which the former
Grampian Police had indeed investigated people, he not only refused
to back down, whenever I mentioned it in the future, he steadfastly
stood by his words, as he does to this day. And as long as he does,
and refuses to apologise for them, I shall continue to bring this
episode to the attention of the public.
Just three other
points on Rev Robertson's tirade against this woman;
1: She was not
attempting to impose her will upon anyone's culture. She merely did
not want the culture of others enforced upon her children.
2: Rosemarkie is not
even within the Highland Boundary, and it is a good distance from
David's native home on the Wee Free dominated Isle of Lewis.
3: Rev Robertson,
who has openly stated that he wants all Scottish schools under
Christian control, wrote his tirade against this 'assault' on
highland culture from his present home in Dundee, in the north-east
of the Scottish Central Belt, well outwith the highlands, and almost
the opposite side of the country from Wee Free dominance.
I therefore leave it
to others to form their own opinions on Rev Robertson's stance on
bigotry. But I for one will openly call him a homophobe, a
transphobe, intolerant, and deeply parochial.
Trying to move the
goalposts, Rev Robertson changes asking if Christianity is
regressive, to western society, and states “But what if we are
wrong? What if Western society is actually regressing? I heard
Professor John Haldane of the University of St Andrew's give a
brilliant lecture on this in which he argued that 'progression' has
only happened in terms of science, but that it cannot be assumed in
terms of morality, art, literature, philosophy, politics and many
other spheres of human activity. Anyone with half a brain, a whole
eye and a listening ear, watching today's British TV will soon
suspect that perhaps music and morality have not progressed much in
the past 50 years!”
Well, morality is of
course a completely man-made concept, which changes with time and
between different cultures. I am old enough to recall being given
the tawse (a leather strap divided into two or three prongs) across my hands at school for wrongdoing. It was only as recently as 1976
that the courts deemed that it was possible for a husband to rape his
wife, when previously he was merely taking his 'conjugal rights'.
Less than 50 years ago, men could still be jailed purely for being
gay or transgender. Less than 100 years ago, a man could still beat
his wife with a rod “no broader than his thumb” (hence, 'rule of
thumb'), and left-handed schoolchildren were still having their left
arms tied behind their backs and forced to write with their right
hands. We look back upon such things with abject horror and
revulsion, and yet each and every one of the things I have mentioned
above were all solidly based upon Biblical, Christian, teachings.
Seems to me that morality has in fact moved on a great deal for the
better, and without any need for god(s).
Art, literature,
philosophy and politics do indeed change and move on as society
changes and evolves. As to music, it too evolves. Pop rock bands
like The Beatles gave way to the psychedelic hippy era, which in turn
brought in both glam rock and heavy metal, which gave way to punk,
which had a short life and was replaced by new wave and indie. But
then, music is thing of very personal taste, and I take no lessons in
what I want to listen to from any member of the dour Wee Free's, most
of whom seem to think the epitome of music is singing the metrical
psalms, without any musical accompaniment (because apparently
instruments are the “tools of the devil” - seems some of them
forget that the Biblical David was a harpist).
Returning to his
assault upon atheists, Rev Robertson states; “But that doesn't stop
our atheist friends who are very reluctant to let go of their faith,
whatever the evidence, and so the rejoinder comes. "Isn't there
an inevitable progression from polytheism to monotheism to atheism?”
“It is part of
their creed and one of their stock-in-trade one-liners that
'Christians are atheists to all other gods except Jesus, atheists
just go one god more'. The problem with this statement, is that it
presupposes that Jesus is just one of the other man made gods. He is
not man-made and therefore He cannot be man destroyed! However that
does not stop people trying.”
“In the same line
of argument is the schoolboy question, "Who made God then?"
Schoolboy arguments
are they? Well, let's try this factual statement for size: “In
pagan Rome, “atheist” (from the Greek atheos) meant anyone who
refused to worship the established pantheon of deities. The term was
applied to Christians, who not only refused to worship the gods of
the pantheon but demanded exclusive worship of their own god.”
Should anyone be
wondering where I got that from, it was stated by philosopher John
Grey, in his article in The Guardian, What scares the new atheists;
the selfsame article by the selfsame person which Rev Robertson was
so eager to quote earlier. Just a word of advice about picking and choosing, David;
when you quote-mine someone, you'd best make sure there's nothing in
their article which may just come back to bite you firmly on the ass.
Rev Robertson then
goes on a rant to try to deflect the question of who or what made
God, by claiming that nobody made God as God is beyond space and
time. Of course, this completely ignores the fact that for thousands
of years the church taught that God was in the sky. But as the
receding God continued to be elusive in the light of scientific
research, suddenly they were “beyond space and time”. If that's
the case, how come the church did not teach that for 2000 years, but
only claimed it once science postulated there may be a 'beyond' space
and time? And if you are going to argue the first mover, then “who
made God?” is a perfectly valid question.
Rev Robertson also
claims “God creates ex nihilo (out of nothing).”, and there is a
supreme problem with this four-word claim; it assumes that nothing
exists beyond the universe, when the fact is science simply does not
know if that is the case. There may be another universe, where the
laws which govern this universe may or may not pertain to that one.
Yes, it may also be a deity, but that is an assumption based on
faith, not proof. Sometimes “I don't know.” is not just the only
answer one can give, it is the only honest, truthful, accurate and
honourable answer. To make an assumption and claim that as fact is
not honest or truthful, it cannot be proven to be accurate, and it
dishonours not only the listener but also the one making the claim.
Yet Rev Robertson
goes right down this very road, and in doing so, quotes William Lane
Craig;
“The Kalam
cosmological argument, popularised by the Christian philosopher
William Lane Craig, puts it this way.
Whatever begins
to exist has a cause,
The universe
began to exist
Therefore the
universe has a cause”
Well, we can't be
for sure if he universe did have a start, or if it's always been
there, and eternal. But going by the standard model of the Initial
Singularity (commonly known as the Big Bang), then if it had a start,
granted it had to have a cause. Where Rev Robertson and William Lane
Craig make the huge mistake is by making the sudden jump in assuming
that the cause behind the universe had to be their God, when that is
simply not known.
I'm also somewhat
surprised at Rev Robertson quoting a modern-day evangelist upon the
First Cause argument, when it goes back much further and was most
famously attributed to Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Five Proofs of God
(which all made the same error of assuming that God had to be behind
all things, without proof). But then, given that he is the Moderator
of a church which steadfastly sticks to the Westminster Confession of
Faith, which openly states that the Pope is the Antichrist, perhaps
Rev Robertson felt a bit uneasy about quoting one of the poster boys
of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I am not for one moment
suggesting that David, who wrote warmly in welcome to Pope Benedict
XVI visiting Scotland is in any way sectarian. A good proportion of
Wee Frees are indeed sectarian, however, and in his one year tenure
as Moderator, he has done nothing to change the Kirk's constitution
and move it away from a deeply anti-Roman Catholic basis.
Instead, Rev
Robertson chooses to quote William Lane Craig. This of course would
be the same William Lane Craig whom, in answering why his god should
order the slaughter of innocent Canaanite children replied “God’s
grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children,
the death of these children was actually their salvation.” Yep, he
really did try to make out that the slaughter of babies and little
children was merciful. Not content with coming out with that glib,
apologetic piece of crap, in December 2012, Craig went further and
came out with a comment which must have appalled other Christians,
even conservative ones like him. Speaking on the Sandy Hook school
massacre, in which 20 children between 6-7 years old, and seven adult
staff were shot dead by crazed gunman Adam Lanza, Craig spoke of it
reminding him of the 'original' Christmas, when Herod ordered the
killing of the male babies, and went on to say that Sandy Hook was “a
reminder really of what Christmas is for, or what it's all about.”
and then continued to claim that the massacre was a “message of
hope”. Methinks you should choose your friends with a greater deal
of care, David.
The next paragraph
by Rev Robertson is laughable, in which he claims, “The trouble is
that our atheist friends have really bought into an unproveable
narrative which they hold on to with all the tenacity of the most
frightened fundamentalist and with which they try to 'evangelise' all
and sundry. And so the myths/doctrines of inevitable progression and
human beings having evolved from polytheism into the light of atheism
have become part of the cultural zeitgeist which most of us inhabit.”
Really? We atheists
have an “unproveable narrative”, says the man who worships a
being whose existence he and every other have the burden of proof
for? And notice the language of comparing atheists to
fundamentalists trying to 'evangelise' all. This is not surprising,
as Rev Robertson has long ranted about “fundamentalist extremist
atheists”. He has even attacked the Scottish Secular Society of
being a 'fundamentalist', 'extremist', atheist and even anti-theist
group, when he knows perfectly well that this is not the case. The
Scottish Secular Society is open to all, and while most members are
atheists, there are also theist members. As David is well aware of
this fact, to then accuse the society of such is more than an out and
out lie, it is bearing false witness.
As to human beings
moving from polytheism to atheism, far from a myth, that is fact
which is reflected in history. Not far from his Dundee home, I
suggest Rev Robertson goes and has a look at the carved stones of the
Picts, who worshipped many local gods, and then on the reverse of
some, he will find beautiful, intricately-carved crosses, from the
time when the one god came to chase out the many. But that was just
one more aspect of the 'receding God', who was not found in nature,
so he must have been in the sky or space, and when not found there,
he must be 'beyond space and time'. That there is a rise in atheism
is not part of a cultural zeitgeist, but merely because more and more
people are becoming better educated, mostly by using the internet,
that the likelihood of god(s) existing is very slim, that all the
“holy” books are mostly inaccurate mythology, and that one day, soon, the receding
God will have nowhere left to run to. And it is not we atheists who
are to blame for that, but rather the theists who have singularly
failed to put up convincing counter-arguments, but instead go on the
attack of atheists, just as Rev Robertson has done in his CT article.
It's called playing the man instead of the ball, David, and it
neither fools nor impresses anyone.
In the penultimate
paragraph Rev Robertson suggests further reading and tries to punt
his own book Engaging with Atheists. I am sorely tempted to
actually buy a copy and read it, because this is one atheist who
knows that attempting to engage in a debate with David is an exercise
in futility. I have proven above how he twists, misrepresents,
miscalls, insults and denigrates anyone he claims to be debating. I
have even seen his fellow theists refuse to debate him due to
arrogance, his untruthfulness, and his insulting behaviour. From the
examples and his own words I have outlaid above, is there any reader
of this article, atheist or theist, who would wish to enter a debate
with the Moderator? I sincerely doubt it. In fact, I don't know how one would 'debate' with Rev Robertson. Having twice been on the Secular Scotland forum, on both occasions he spat the dummy and stormed off, claiming "insulting behaviour", purely because people questioned him and pulled him up about his own conduct. Just a tip, David, a debate is when both sides are heard, not just yours.
But then, from a
long rant about what was supposed to be about Christianity being in
regression, which descended into a hate-filled rant against atheists,
we see that all Rev Robertson wishes to do is promote his own book,
which if it is anything like his book, My Wonderful Obsession, then
it will be of the same assumptions, insults, misconceptions, twisting
of words, misrepresentation, and a bearing false witness which would
have given Niccolo Machiavelli a run for his money, and which myself
and many others who have come to expect from a man whom I have proven
to be nothing more than a bigot, a liar, and a hypocrite.
Finally, I would just like to say to other Christians and other theists that this article is by no means any attempt to belittle your faith (although I have no doubt Rev Robertson will attempt to twist my words), which if you have one and are happy in that, I fully respect your right to do so, and would be first to defend. Rather it is merely to expose one "Holy Wullie" whose tenet seems to be 'Don't do as I do, do as I say.'
LINKS
Is Christianity Regressive? David Robertson, Christan Today, 22 April 2016:
What scares the new atheists. John Grey, The Guardian, 2 March 2015:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists
Pew Research Centre article on religious forecasts, 15 April 2015:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/15/europe-projected-to-retain-its-christian-majority-but-religious-minorities-will-grow/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/15/europe-projected-to-retain-its-christian-majority-but-religious-minorities-will-grow/
Scots are abandoning their religion. National Secular Society, 16 April 2013:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/04/scots-are-losing-their-religion
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/04/scots-are-losing-their-religion
Free Kirk leader hits back at his critics in article for gay website:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13184673.Free_kirk_leader_hits_back_at_his_critics_in_article_for_gay_website/
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13184673.Free_kirk_leader_hits_back_at_his_critics_in_article_for_gay_website/
Quantum of Solas No.32. The discussion about Caitlyn Jenner starts at 5:35:
Comment: LGBTI discussion more like a rally than a debate. David Robertson, Scotsman, 11 April 2016:
William Lane Craig on the "infinite good" of the Biblical mass slaughter of children and his god's "morally suffcient reasons":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc
William Lane Craig speaks on the Sandy Hook massascre and the "true meaning" of Christmas:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzg2u3_william-lane-craig-on-the-sandy-hook-massacre_news
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzg2u3_william-lane-craig-on-the-sandy-hook-massacre_news
No comments:
Post a Comment