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
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?
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.)
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".
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!
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 †