Show me the evidence.

Once again, I got embroiled in a discussion about evidence for the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth and once again I was told:

Though, if one holds your current line of reasoning, one would have to say that no historical figure can be substantiated, at least those who’ve existed before DNA technology, or photographic capabilities.

Thus, to say “evidence” does not exist, would, in fact, be erroneous, as there are numerous myriads of contemporary written claims to such.

Really? I am not aware of a single claim or account, yet it seems there are ”myriads” .

These would be apologist types simply have no grasp of what evidence is. They take an unsubstantiated  claim in a ‘book’, assume that it must be true and consider this is evidence. One might as well liken such an arrogant  assumption to claiming historicity for Harry Potter.



Atheism: Keep it to yourself

I believe one of the major problems with atheism and atheists is the seemingly constant ”In Your Face”  attitude which is becoming all too prevalent in this continuing secular society we find ourselves in.

In fact, as an atheist myself, it has got to the point where even I am embarrassed by the full on atheist onslaught that atheists are now putting the rest of society under.

Let’s be honest, shall we, if we want to practice atheism is there really any need to ”take it to the street” as it were?

I mean, you can hardly turn on the TV or the radio or the internet without some atheist espousing their worldview.

In fact it is becoming increasingly more difficult to even drive to the shops these days without encountering an atheist trying to hand me pamphlets at stop streets or traffic lights.

Only the other morning, just as I was about to take out the bin, an atheist walked up the driveway and asked if I had been indoctrinated?

I mean, really!

Do we have to continually draw attention to ourselves?

We’ve suffered the lies and abuse for centuries, so what’s a few more millennia?

I like Hitchens and Harris just like the next atheist but I’ve now got people I barely know sending me emails of their videos every day! I mentioned Dawkins the other week and now my Inbox is flooded with The Richard Dawkins Quote of the Day.

I was even invited to a Dan Dennett seminar with a 20% discount for the first 10 who signed up and a ”free Dan Dennett beard”.  Seriously? As if Dan Dennett would get even 5 people at one of his seminars!

I don’t know, I reckon it was better when the closet was your best friend and we made the secret sign and even the word atheist was mentioned in hushed tones.

Call me a sentimentalist, but I miss the good old days!



Beyond the pale – ”liars” for Jesus

I should know when to leave well alone , but sometimes ….

David Robertson adamantly insisted, yet again, that the child psychologist  was Dorothy Kelman and Dawkins cites her in God Delusion, ( a claim he also made in an article he wrote for Christianity today) ….

This is interesting because whereas most contemporary atheists think it is an obvious point that humans are born atheists and have to be ‘indoctrinated’ to believe in God, there are those who agree with Richard Dawkins, who with psychologist Dorothy Kelman believes children believe in a Creator instinctively

David Robertson – Christianity Today.

Not only is this a blatant untruth note that he states that  Kelman and Dawkins both believe children believe in a Creator (Capital C).

And back to his post …


It’s Kelman – and if you actually read the book – as opposed to doing a word search you will get there. Do try Ark….reading is such a great way to learn…


And then our erudite Pastor suddenly did an about face … but not without his usual barbed asinine passing shot.

Yes – mea culpa – it is Deborah Keleman – but again please read the book – not just the index. Dawkins cites her as teaching that children are intuitive theists. Your unthinking view that children are born atheists is nonsense….which even Dawkins does not accept…


Again, he insists that Keleman is stating that kids are ”intuitive theists”. However, what Dawkins/ Keleman actually wrote was this ….

Children are especially likely to assign purpose to everything, as the psychologist Deborah Keleman tells us in her article ‘Are children“intuitive theists”?  ‘Clouds are ‘for raining’. Pointy rocks are ‘so that animals could scratch on them when they get itchy’. The assignment of purpose to everything is called teleology. Children are native teleologists, and many never grow out of it.

And just so our Pastor didn’t lose too much face and show to all his faithful how even those who write about evolution accept that kids are ”intuitive theists”, he added this final … scientific recommendation.


Let me help you one final time – next time do your own thinking and reading…


I wonder if David Robertson actually knows what honesty is or for that matter what the Discovery Institute is?




Have you read the God Delusion?

If so I need a bit of help qualifying something that David Robertson is asserting.

Here is Robertson’s quote:

No. What Kelman and Dawkins mean is that we are wired to believe in God (he calls it an evolutionary throwback – I call it God!). Are you saying they are wrong?

Dorothy Kelman is a child psychologist.

This sounds much like what Justin Barrett was claiming a while back and I cannot for one second countenance Dawkins accepting such a notion.

As Robertson refuses to divulge the exact quote or reference where in God Delusion Dawkins is supposed to have said this – he is as always charming  and super-helpful in this regard, a proper Christian, dontcha know?

I need one of you sleuths to provide the quote. Thanks in advance.



Calling all deconverted Christians …..

Bruce says:

Hi Ark. I infrequently check out your blog to see if your take on Christianity has changed at all, your recent post entitled “Dumb and Dumber” being a case in point, but I see that I must give you full marks for consistency. I’m curious why you seem drawn to deliberately expound upon the numerous deficiencies within Christianity that you frequently showcase. Is it your superior mental capabilities that you seek to be recognized or is it the agreement that you receive from some of your followers that reinforces your conviction? Surely you can comprehend that there are many very intelligent and gifted individuals who would strongly differ with many of your accusations. Experimental particle physicist Dr Michael G Strauss, synthetic organic chemist Dr. James M. Tour and Dr William Lane Craig are just three that come to mind. My point being, your post on Dumb and Dumber basically ridicules any who would seriously entertain believing in Jesus Christ and the record of His ministry and the early church, as recorded in the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament. Your statement “Are we dealing with a group of men who were as thick as a brick of lard?” pretty well encapsulates the conclusion that you are drawing. I am acutely aware that for every argument I may put forward, you in all probability, could produce some argument that would call into question the validity of my argument. Let’s be realistic, not all Christians are dumb. Matter of fact, there are many who would leave both you and I in the dust should we compare their mental capabilities with our own. To infer that the Apostles were all dumb and any who believe their testimony are dumb is ludicrous. Of course you knew that going in, but I’m presuming that the rational behind your post was not to identify this “obvious” deficiency but rather to showcase your superior mental capabilities and obtain confirming acknowledgement as per some of the resulting comments. God is real. Jesus Christ was and is His Son and He is real. I have experienced the guidance and leading of His Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit of God is real. You don’t agree, understood. But please do not insult my intelligence and the worth of my faith and trust in Jesus. At no time have I endeavoured to insult your intelligence. Best regards.


Here’s the post in question if you need a reference. Dumb and Dumber.

Feel free to engage with Bruce, either here or on his blog.


I shall go and make popcorn ….





Dumb and Dumber

The ministry of the character Jesus of Nazareth lasted either one year or three.

Let’s split the difference, shall we? We’ll say two years.

In the beginning, the twelve disciples dropped everything on a whim and tagged along for the ride, eventually to be sent on The Grand Commission. Ostensibly they were to be deliverers of the Good News. Odd that Jesus couldn’t have extended his ministry to say ten years and traveled to other countries, but there you go. He didn’t.

During Jesus’ ministry, the twelve witnessed miracle after miracle, including calming raging storms, walking on water, feeding of the five thousand, the four thousand, healing the blind, the deaf and the lame. The exorcisms of demons, not least of these being Legion and probably the most impressive, several resurrections, including the really famous one of Lazarus. In fact Jesus exploits were so grand, and so numerous they could have filled all the books in the world, according to the writer of gJohn.

So Jesus was no shrinking violet. The disciples were witnesses to some of the most amazing feats imaginable.

Furthermore, they were confidants to the Word of God, and were informed repeatedly that the destiny of the Son of Man was to die and to resurrect after three days.

So the disciples were well primed. Two years of living with Jesus cheek to jowl. Not only with evidence of his miraculous healing abilities but also that Jesus was the Messiah which they acknowledged.

And yet, after Jesus was put to death did they hang around to see Jesus come back to life as he had promised? After all, they had acknowledged he was the Messiah.

No, they ran away. And when the women told them the Lord had risen did they believe? No, they didn’t.

Does this sound even remotely plausible? Are we dealing with a group of men who were as thick as a brick of lard? As dumb as a sack of hammers, or is this merely a plot device in a work of fiction?



Can You Feel The Christian Love? It tastes like bile to me.

It is baffling why you object so aggressively regarding SSM?
The homosexual community across the globe number less than 10% of the population and the numbers that wish to marry are around 10% of this figure.

Seriously, on what grounds do you actively pursue this issue especially when there are so many more urgent and worthwhile things to pursue.
Let people live their lives the way they want to. It really is none of your business.

  1. Its not me that pursues the issue – its the militant secularists. You will note that I am responding to a vote in the UK parliament to impose SSM on Northern Ireland. Also your figures are way wrong…its 1-2% of the population who are homosexual….also your principle that we should let people live their lives the way they want is hypocritical and irrational. You seem very disturbed that some people want to live their lives as Christians…! Do you think if someone wants to live their life having incest with their children that principle would apply? Of course not – we all have limits…its just where the limits are and who determines them.



Patriotism …. and other meaningless nonsense.

As I mentioned in the previous post I don’t ‘do’ the whole National Anthem thing anymore than I ‘do’ the patriotism thing.

Personally, I consider such nonsense, just like religion, to be divisive and does not in any meaningful way build  positive relations.

I grew up in the UK but have lived in South Africa for decades. I am sure I must have sung God Save The Queen at some point in time, though I can’t honestly remember when, probably as a lark before a soccer game I expect.

Only the first verse of this despicable song is usually sung ( there are four verses) and I’ll venture most people don’t even give the lyrics a second thought as they belt them out with all the gusto and false bravado they can muster.

God save our gracious Queen,

Long live our noble Queen,

God save the Queen!

Send her victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over us;

God save the Queen!

Right off the bat we have ‘God’. And you can be sure we are not talking about any other god than the Christian god.

As an atheist this is right up my street, of course!

And it is worth reminding those who may have forgotten or are unaware, Kings and Queens were considered to rule by Divine Right.

As the UK is no longer considered a Christian nation all those British agnostics and atheists merrily singing along are only reinforcing this ‘Divine Right’. I expect the Royal Family are laughing themselves silly.

And I wonder how the Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc feel about it? Not their god after all.

Rather silly, don’t you think?

Let’s look at the second verse. ( Which as far as I know is never sung).

O Lord our God arise,

 Scatter her enemies

And make them fall;

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On Thee our hopes we fix,

God save us all!


Make of that as you will, but to me it is nothing but a rallying war cry. Reminds me of something one might find in the Old Testament before another round of slaughter ensued.

I won’t bother with the other two verses. They are much the same drivel. (You can Google them if you like).

And I suspect that most anthems are along similar lines: What’s mine is mine and what’s your is yours and if you try to take mine you’ll get yours. And if you don’t watch out we’ll take yours in any case. Because we have God on our side.  

Which tends to be what a lot of history is all about.

As for the South African anthem. A more ridiculous song you are unlikely to find. A PC version comprising five languages of something one might hear on the Eurovision Song Contest. I have never learned it, or sung it, and simply shake my head whenever I hear the damn thing played.

If you want to listen to a National Anthem then this is the only version worth bothering with, not least because Hendrix’ interpretation has all the screams and cries of  falling bombs and machine gun fire.



”Science Complements The Word of God”

John Kilpatrick

Three ways the sciences complement the Bible, Ark:
• Cosmology — There was a beginning.
• Geology — Mankind has dominion.
• Biology — Life has a single origin.
If you want to add the social sciences, we have also:
• Archaeology — which never contradicts what the Bible actually says.
• History — Historical geography; chronology; social history; cult history; diplomatic/military history; eyewitness records; and documentary history all complement the Biblical text. (And before you deny the historicity of the Resurrection on the grounds that the rules of modern historiography prohibit the historian from saying that the Resurrection was an historical event; just remember that those same rules insist that we record as historical fact that hundreds of people saw the Risen Christ.)
Shall we bring in Jurisprudence? Why not?
• Testimony — The eyewitness testimony to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be gainsayed.
And finally, perhaps the softest of the social sciences:
• Sociology — The Faith that was once for all delivered to the saints [Jude 3] (for which we contend) ought not be dismissed as objective evidence. Any observer can see that what the Bible calls faith is both real and rational.


Well … what can I say?

Over to you lot …..



Evidence based or Indoctrination?

Ark, (I am that person. )I was reared in a progressive ELCA church as a child and did not come to faith out of fear, trauma, or blind indoctrination. For me, it was a search for “truth” and the reason behind things like the origin of life and the universe that ultimately led me to a conviction of God. It was a process over time, you see.


If one is raised in a Christian environment , no matter if it is considered ”progressive” – I am not really sure what this term actually means – the fundamental tenets of faith regarding the character Jesus of Nazareth and specifically his crucifixion and resurrection are the same.

This still sounds like indoctrination to me.

Like every other conversion claim I have read, I still see no evidence whatsoever for this particular claim either.

Many of you have been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Would any of  you consider this person’s ”process over time” to be indoctrination or not?