One of the problems I have in critiquing Bumblin' Bobby's prattle, is that he is so bleedin' repetitive. I've spoken myself, in the past, of the value of a certain amount of repetition, but I do like to have some variety in my own posts; which is damned hard to achieve, when faced with the same old arguments, over and over again.
But I shall try, Gentle Reader, I shall try…
Oh, and by the way Bob, you're barred, as I told you some time back, from commenting at my main blog, but free to speak here. I mention this because you appear somewhat confused on the topic.
This is a two-in-one, Parte, Ye Firste being in reply to this load of old tosh.
What, asks the Pious Plagiarist Pamphleteer Plonker, is the common theme between these events?
1. The sinking of the Titanic – 1912
2. The attack on Pearl Harbour – 1941
3. The bombing of the King David Hotel – 1946
4. The death of Georgie Best – 2005
Umm…
They all happened? People died?
Oh, I know, I Know! Me Sir! Me Sir!
Are they all events which Bob thinks he can string together to make some form of half-witted point, Sir?
Amazingly, it turns out they all ignored warnings and Look What Happened! Y'know I think Bob's hit on something here; ignoring warnings may lead to Bad Things Happening. Well there's a relief for philosophers, warning-sign manufacturers and health-and-safety officials, who've been struggling with that one for millennia.
Do I need to spell out where Bobberty's going with this?
Thought not.
Here's a warning for you Bob. On the twenty-sixth of May, a five-ton lesbian jabberwocky is going to demolish your house, killing anyone who doesn't heed my warning to vacate. Not worried? Why not? Allow me to guess that, despite my warning, you're not entirely convinced that jabberwockies, of any weight or sexuality, actually exist. You recognised, didn't you, that I was making an assertion, unsupported by evidence. See how this works?
Icebergs are real, everyday objects which are quite common in the north Atlantic.
Japanese aircraft exist, and Pearl Harbour is a military base, and therefore should have been prepared for attack. (Possibly. The 'Should they have known enough to reasonably expect attack?' argument is one I do not wish to get into.)
Terrorists, unfortunately, exist. (And are, according to Bob, God's means of smiting The Gheys.)
It is a proven fact that over-use of alcohol leads to health issues.
The existence of souls, afterlives, gods (judgemental or not) has as much supporting evidence as has my jabberwocky. And all the assertions in the world will not conjure them into existence.
That said, Bob, I can sell you a vorpal blade, if you're worried…
And now Parte, Ye Seconde, which deals with an even bigger load of old tosh.
Bob, apparently, understands 'from the news that Prof Stephen Hawking was 73 yesterday.' (It's amazing, by the way, how often Bob understands things which have been featured in the Freethinker, from vaguely described and unnamed sources. It's almost as if he doesn't want to admit to reading the site.)
Apparently:
On a personal level I wish him well, especially when one considers the awful physical disability that he has had to contend with. However, he is an extremely godless man and one who holds to unsound views regarding science and the origin of the world.
However, his most infamous statement was made a few years ago when he said that the afterlife "was a fairy story".
He asks:
Why is it that otherwise intelligent people will make such wild assertions? The answer is three-fold:
I won't bore you with the quotes. Basically, he thinks (not, perhaps, my greatest ever choice of verb) that people who say such things are lying to themselves because they don't want to be accountable, and yet at the same time (Bob's favourite phrase, this) the devil has blinded them to the truth.
Kinda contradicted yerself there, Bobby. If the devil blinded 'em to the truth, then they cannot be lying, even subconsciously, about not knowing the truth. This failure of logic does not bode well for what comes next…
The most interesting part, though, is in the comments. A brave and hardy soul has asked 'Which of Professor Hawking's scientific views do you consider particularly unsound, Bob?'
To which Bob's feeble attempt to look like he's making a substantive answer is:
All of those views that contradict the Bible, the infallible Word of God.
I really would like a better answer to that question. Which particular scientific views do you find unconvincing, Bob? And why? 'Because they contradict the Bible' is not an answer. What does he actually say, and in which paper does he say it, that you can prove, by experiment, observation or mathematical argument, to be wrong. Not just unlikely, or counter to what you'd like to be right. Impossible. Wrong. You made the claim; now back it up.
Falsify that sucker, Bobby-Boy. The comment-board awaits you, the Nobel committee is on stand-by, and here's a handy link if your LaTex is rusty. Show us yer physics!
—Daz
You may use these HTML tags in comments<a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""></abbr>
<acronym title=""></acronym> <blockquote></blockquote> <del></del>* <strike></strike>† <em></em>* <i></i>† <strong></strong>* <b></b>†* is generally preferred over †
The Hutton Delusion 
[…] A Strange Tale Of Jabberwockies, Evangelists, Icebergs And Physicists […]
LikeLike
“Why is it that otherwise intelligent people will make such wild assertions?”
Ever thought of asking that question about yourself Bob? Or do you not consider yourself intelligent enough to answer it?
LikeLike
GMR, note that Bob was asking about intelligent people, thus deftly excusing himself from having to answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Why is it that otherwise intelligent people will make such wild assertions?”
Precisely because they are intelligent, Bob. And the fact that you cannot understand them and refuse to even contemplate what they have to say shows you, irrefutably, to be their complete antithesis.
LikeLike
I was in the subway the other day, hurrying home with a camera full of squirrel pictures when I saw this:
I snapped a photo figuring sooner or later it would be appropriate. I got a kick out of the placement. I originally thought the tract was part of the ad and thought, “How odd.”
LikeLike
Fojap, I’ll give the sticker-placer full marks for style, even if the message is bunkum.
LikeLike
And I notice Bob’s not replied yet. Well, fair enough. He’s probably working on his presentation. We shouldn’t expect him to deliver an in-depth physics lecture off the cuff, after all…
LikeLike
Is Bob aware that the Bible states that the Earth is stationary? Meaning that the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun must be false because it contradicts the Bible, the infallible Word of God. If the Bible is infallible and the Earth isn’t rotating, how do geostationary satelites work? Maybe geostationary satelites don’t really exist and are just a lie that Satan uses to lead us astray. But if that is the case, how does my Sky TV and satnav work? It must be a full time job keeping such absurd beliefs protected from reality.
LikeLike
“It must be a full time job keeping such absurd beliefs protected from reality.”
From Bob’s latest, it would seem he has plenty of time to do so. It looks like he’s been sponging off the state for many years, being either voluntarily unemployed, or possibly unemployable.
LikeLike
@Dave
You are absolutely right. The deluded one has clearly let slip that he has spent a lifetime living off your money and my money so he can concentrate not on working and providing for his family, but on haranguing passers-by with his loathsome tracts of religious codswallop.
‘Over the years money has been extremely scarce, as I’ve never had a professional job with an income to match, but we have always put God first in our lives with the result that He has provided.
About 18 years ago the Lord led me to reduce my secular employment and spend more time doing street evangelism. Humanly speaking this was a daft idea, as we still had our sons living at home and little money coming in, BUT God provided for our needs to such an extent that we have a house that is more than adequate for our needs with no mortgage on it.’
No Bob, your imaginary god did not provide for your needs. I did. Dave did. Daz did. We all did. And quite frankly, I want my money back you sponging, thieving, lying, lazy bastard!
LikeLike
I did not intend to put any comments on this “blog” but I feel I must reply to the unjust allegation levelled against me – I am NOT in receipt of welfare benefits.
LikeLike
You can see why Bob (“I’m queer for Jesus”) Hutton is unemployable by clicking this link:
LikeLike
Hey Barry, it’s good to hear from you again; how are you, old chap?
Just a piece of advice – read your post before putting it on the internet. You have missed the word “see” after the word “can”.
Regards,
Bob
LikeLike
I’m pleased to see that the mistake has now been corrected. Now, perhaps, my detractors will stop falsely accusing me of being on welfare benefits.
LikeLike
Perhaps Bob, perhaps. Note though that this is how right of reply works. People said stuff, you were allowed to reply to it. Compare this to your own blog, where people’s replies just disappear into the aether…
LikeLike
There is a fundamental difference between my blog and what passes for “The Hutton Delusion” blog. My blog is purely to promote the Christian faith and, from time to time, draw my readers’ attention to the godless state of this nation. My blog’s purpose is positive.
However, this “blog” has been written with one purpoese in mind – to make personal attacks upon me. Please note that I don’t have a blog entitled “The Daz Delusion” for one simpole reason – the Gospel I promote is a postive Gospel that changes lives, your blog is just a long list of attacks.
I do not object to the fact that you are targetting me for personal attack; indeed, I rejoice in it because it increases my reward in Heaven (see Matthew 5 v 1-12). However, I suggest that,before you criticise the fact that I don’t always publish comments, you have a good hard look at yourself, your lifestyle and where you are headed when you die.
LikeLike
Bob, this bog exists as an adjunct to my main blog, where posts criticising you—because you appear to revel in being criticised, and your own posting speeds up when you notice I’m criticising you—were beginning to swamp my usual content.
My posts are critiques. Sometimes I comment on your personal morals, yes, but that’s because you make your personal morals explicit in the posts I critique.
And Bob, I only bother to critique here, because your ‘moderation’ policy appears to consist of ‘I don’t know how to answer that, so I’ll pretend it never got asked, and not allow it to be seen.’ In short, Bob, your own dishonesty drove people to want a forum where they could discuss any point you made.
If you begin allowing all comments through moderation, with only the exception of those which contravene a clearly stated policy, I will no longer need to criticise you off-forum, will I?
To be clear: freedom of speech does not mean that you have to allow anyone here to use your platform to reply from. But if you do deny people that platform, they are justified in seeking another platform from which to do so.
LikeLike
I presume that when you die you’ll be going to the great dole office in the sky, Bob? And by the way, your blog is not ‘positive’ at all. Far from it. It promotes fiction as truth, offers false hope to the feeble-minded and gloats over the deaths of those whom you regard as ‘godless’. So nothing whatsoever to be commended there. And I concur with Daz regarding your censorship of comments as you flatly refuse to publish any that are beyond your ability to answer. This applies even when there is no use at all of profanities. Which kind of makes you a coward as well as a nuisance, doesn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person