What's Wrong With Canada?

Oh Canada!
From see to see!
[Keep looking if you don't see!]


Canada is a great country to live in, say I, having always been a resident except for brief periods of travel beyond her borders.


What's Right With Canada?

• we have a generally successful world-recognized country of some 35 million
• we won the "best country of the world to live in" several times by the United Nations [otherwise known as the DUN which is 3/5 of the word "dunce" = Dis-United Nations] 
• we have a Prime Minister who stands for integrity and truth instead of political correctness. PM Harper we salute you.
• 

• we have a health plan so no one is likely to go bankrupt paying medical bills
• we have a country which allows a input from native peoples or aboriginals as I understand they like to be called [Just so you know there is no hidden conflict of interest, I am partly aboriginal. Have not discovered what part yet. Study ongoing.]
• we have the second largest country by land mass in the world, second only to Russia
• 
• we originated hockey and possibly lacrosse
•  
• some of us eat seal meat raw
•   
• we set a record in 2010 for the most gold medals EVER won by any country in the Winter Olympics beating out the former USSR and Norway
• 
• In Winter Olympics 2010, our men's Team Canada beat the U.S. as did our women's Team Canada! [Was this the first time we beat the U.S. since the war of 1812?]
• our education system is generally sound
• we are generally polite unless you get our combined backs up
• we have great transportation systems
• many world-renowned inventions and discoveries were made in Canada [refer to SchoolGenius.com for some of them]
• we discovered or invented insulin, pablum, snowmobiles and the Canadarm
•    
• 
• we have I believe if not THE most beautiful country in the world, at least in the top ten considering our lakes, rivers, coastal areas, forests and plains, old and young cities

There is much more but what is wrong with Canada is supposed to be the current topic.

What IS WRONG with Canada?

[no particular order]

•  our health care system is aging in more ways than one and needs a competitional remake

• our educational system needs to ensure that they idea of a "liberal arts" tradition is kept liberal in the old sense of ALLOWING ALL POINTS OF VIEW TO BE HEARD unlike Carleton University's Student ASS-ociation which does not understand that we have FREE speech in Canada not free speech as long as it agrees WITH YOU!
• we don't teach CRITICAL THINKING or else we would not have so many people who don't know that facts are what are ACTUALLY, demonstrably, evidentially true and NOT a matter of "my" OPINION [present writer excluded of course!]
• our antiquated-patronizing big-brother-helps-little-brother behaviour toward our First Nations peoples keeps them in poverty and ensures that they have a higher rate of incest, drunkenness, drug problems, crime, unemployment, and being cheated by the very leaders that are supposedly elected to "SERVE" them but instead cut themselves large salaries and leave band-owned houses to rot
• we have an unenviable record of allowing "natives" who often are NOT native at all to Canada to run roughshod over our laws and threaten innocent Canadians and allowing the arrest of people who are protesting against illegal takeovers of residential areas that they have not paid for [Can you spell C a l e d o n i a?]
• Why Gary McHale arrested?
• 
• One of the officers got out of the cruiser, walked up to McHale’s open window, and said the purpose of the stop was to advise him that if he attempted to raise a Canadian flag at the rally, he would be arrested.
  Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/tag/gary-mchale/#ixzz15Y2j3tEr
• Occupiers free
•  Is this an Indian burka?
• our wimpy universities allow radical groups to STOP FREE SPEECH which is enshrined in our Charter of Rights [I guess using it to silence political adversaries is okay?]
• 
• FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
  

  (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

  (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

  (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

  (d) freedom of association.



• Christie Blatchford, Anne Coulter, and Mark Steyn are not allowed the privilege of FREE SPEECH in some universities in Canada having been subjected to cancellations and demonstrations for fear that the "students" might get upset by hearing other points of view than that taught by the university




•    




• we often hire people based on their minority status rather than their knowledge or fitness for the job




• equalization payments are a form of state welfare which only serve as a disincentive to entrepreneurs getting better ideas for jobs in our Maritime provinces and Quebec like giving allowances to children whether they kept their room clean and their homework done or not

This is not a comprehensive look based on exhaustive research but on news events and life experience, so ...

Okay so what do you think?

Do you have any "rights" or "wrongs" that I missed?

What needs fixing? What doesn't?

We Honour Those Who Gave Their Lives For Our Freedom

There is nothing we can say or do to comfort anyone who has lost a loved one in the effort to preserve freedom.

Having lost my son-in-law Tedd Woodworth, I can at least understand a small fraction of their loss. They died by offering their lives; Tedd had no such choice as Hodgkins disease took him from my youngest daughter, a widow at 26. She lost her love, her husband, a father to unborn children, her ministry alongside him. She felt like a teenager again. No friend to share her day with, to rejoice in goodness with, to cry in sadness with. Even good friends can never replace a lost beloved.  


But God in his infinite wisdom, providing we actually believe there may be a higher wisdom than ours, took him and within 2 years gave her a new husband and a new life. Once I get my JoyfulMourning.com website back up you can read more about it from my point of view. 


Until then please check out the website of Rebecca and her new husband Scott at www.brokenclay.net to hear about it from their point of view.

I will NEVER know what the spouses of service-men and service-women feel but at least I have a very small glimpse. So what can we do if  I know any of them?

• I can be a friend to them
• I can be there for them
• I can allow them to cry on my shoulder without trivial comments
• I can be a silent friend until they want me to say something even if NEVER is their decision
• I can NOT give them advice unless they specifically ask for it
• I can show my love
• I can make sure I do NOT confuse them by discussing whether I think war is okay or not
• I can pay the love of THEIR loved ones FORWARD to someone else to keep that love flowing
• Let it never stop
• Let freedom ring along the seashores of our 1000's of miles of coast
• Let it ring in the lofty mountains as they reach upward to their creator
• Let it ring all along the flat prairies, our food banks for us and much of the world
• Let it ring in the darkness of the Arctic night
• Let it shine when the northern night finally ends!
• Let it ring in our cities and in the country, on ocean vessels and fishing boats, in foreign fields, in the air and on the water, in our forests and in the depths of space
• Let it ring in every heart that those who died to preserve our freedom would not turn their face in shame and weep to see it being taken from even the youngest AND the oldest among us.

-Charles Pedley
-Remembrance Day 2010
-U.S. Veteran's Day 2010


Two Slideshow Versions With Song "A Soldier Cries"


To my grandsons, Nathanael and Andrew Guinn, remember YOUR Grandfather Guinn who gave his life and God gave it back to him and he came home. 


He came home so he and your Grandmother Guinn could have your Dad, Jonathan Guinn and so that Jon could meet my daughter, Ann, at Elim Bible Institute and would marry him so that ....


YOU WOULD BE BORN!


Be thankful for him! I was honoured to meet and know him a bit. When I first met him, it was like we were old friends. We shared the early-morning muffin run. [Ask your Dad if you do not understand this one (:-) I miss seeing him every time I come to visit you.]


May we be ever thankful to the freedom that allows us to believe as we wish, to worship in freedom or not as we see fit. There will never be a red or yellow tag which discounts the price of those who gave their life to preserve .... FREEDOM!


God gave us the freedom to acknowledge Him or not. Men gave their lives for an absolute. The absolute value of living free! Many countries around our world DO NOT have this freedom. These videos challenge us to remember that sacrifice.  

Barrack Obama beat Sarah Palin in 2008; in 2010 She Won!

Barrack Obama beat Sarah Palin in 2008.
In 2010 She Won!

Regardless of the demeaning tactics used against Sarah Palin in 2008, she kept fighting to the end and probably raised McCain's chances by several points. But she did not win.

Again we have the bloggers, uninformed or ignorant individuals and a blind media casting accusations, innuendoes, and dragging her family into the mix because they cannot fault her in other ways. 

If it was ANY other politician it is an accepted practice to leave the family business out of politics. However Sarah Palin is singled out because she is an anathema. She defies the odds by being a conservative female. That is just not acceptable you know with the political and media elite.

It is the day after the U.S. midterm elections. This time Sarah Palin beat Barrack Obama!


You may wonder how I can make this statement since she was not running anywhere. It was Sarah Palin who appeared at a multitude of tea party rallies by invitation. She spurred them on to stand up for their ideals and the ideals of the founding fathers. 


The United States of America became a country because their rulers [in England] were taxing their tea but gave them no place to voice their desires. If you haven't heard of the Boston Tea Party then you missed the most important catalyst to creating the United States of America.


Mr. Obama and his two packed houses full of Democrats did not heed the voices of the people but went ahead with his radical agenda just like the King of England long ago.


So if the naysayers want to act like spoiled children, let them. I think Sarah has learned to ignore them. You know what they say about sticks and stones in the old children's rhyme, don't you?


Yes, with the number of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin winning, even tho she lost a few, she beat Barrack Obama at his own game!


So I will make no references to putting lipstick on democrats not changing them into .... sorry I said I would not .....


However perhaps Mr. Obama helped some democrats to go home after supporting his socialistic agenda and meditate on the symbol of his party. I believe it rhymes with "grass."

"You can work for the people or for yourself; if you work for yourself, that won't work for you."  - cp

How Science Has Failed

This is written for BCReason and others like him who may think "science" to be infallible sort of like some think of  the pope.


Science has failed many times and then discovered its failures later.


See Schoolgenius.com.


Look down Navigation on left side. For some reason it comes up slowly. You will see a page which says Failing Science. Then there are also two sub-pages that give further failures of past science.


Science has NEVER tackled the existence of God nor could it. It has enough trouble getting itself right!

BCReason: Finally Somewhat Reasonable

Editor: Thank you BCReason. Even tho you still have somewhat inflammatory remarks, your answering of my two questions deserves a publishing of your last comments with my responses.

BCReason
I think this may be my last comment. I've answered your questions multiple times and I still see you posting that no one has answered them.

Charles: I do not believe you ANSWERED my two main questions before Brian. You responded to them but ANSWERING is what you did THIS TIME.

BCReason:

Either you are not understanding the answers, refuse to understand because of your religious indoctrination or are being deliberately deceitful. In such case it would be pointless to continue.

Charles:

You may have a point. However now that you and I appear to be on the same wavelength altho not on the same wave, we can talk.

• I find it rather humorous that you say I might not understand your answers. My point about that is that many if not most of them were diatribes rather than concise answers to the questions. This time you were brief and to the point. That makes for discussion.
• Using the word "indoctrination" is a word which is used to put down individuals that do not agree with you instead of responding to their points. Perhaps you did not intend this but that is what it is. 
• Let's take the root of "indoctrination" which is really the Latin word docere, doctus which means "to teach".
• So INDOCTRINATION is what you have been taught although it is usually used to put down people.
• BCReason you have also been indoctrinated unless you have never learned a thing.
• Any teaching relating to your personal beliefs are "religious" as that is what the root word means.
• So you have had probably several indoctrinations at various times in your life, your latest one being an agnostic by my definition as have I
• 'Have I been brainwashed' is like asking if you have been brain-dirtied
• And no, I have no intention of EVER being deceitful nor did I.
• Brian, if I were to say that YOU "refuse to understand" would you be complemented or put down? That shows your indoctrination, that you think that those who disagree with you are REFUSING your knowledge. I am sure Mr. Obama thinks that about most Americans who seem ready to take him to task on November 2, 2010.

BCReason:
1. I do not a have 100% of the worlds knowledge. Less than 1%. That's Question number 1 answered.

2. God could exist in the knowledge I do not possess. That's Question number 2 answered. or more simply Yes!

"Are you happy? You now have an atheist that answered your pointless exercise. Now you can post that you have at least one atheist that answered your question."

Charles:
Regardless of your sarcastic "are you happy" and "pointless excercise" comments you at least seem open to discuss rather than argue. Great! That does make me happier although by nature I am generally happy most of the time and I hope YOU are too.

Since you obviously got the POINT, then the "exercise" WAS NOT "pointless".
Again a flaming remark. [Why?]




BCReason
I admit that there are BILLIONS of people that claim to have knowledge of God or gods. [Editor: God only refers to the name of Yahweh, the ONE God. I changed BC's "Gods" to "gods".]

Happy again? [Editor: Pointless sarcasm? (:-)]

So all you have really proven is I may be agnostic instead of an atheist.  

[Editor: Obviously my questions were NOT a pointless exercise because BC obviously finally gets the point!]

Which really means nothing because you can be both and agnostic and an atheist. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

Charles: I tend to disagree with that statement as "atheists" in general DENY the possibility of the existence of a God. Agnostics are just not sure if there is or is not one. I find that an honest answer, admitting that you really do not know.




BCReason:
Agnostic is a statement of knowledge. Without the knowledge of gods.
Atheism is a statement of belief. Not believing in Gods


Charles:
I tend to agree with this description of what an atheist is from the Wikipedia:

"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.^[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.^[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,^[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[5][6"

and agnostic:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.^[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief." from Wikipedia 


Here is what seems to be a rational approach to what an atheist really is.

The following quote is taken from the following website" 









What is an Atheist? From http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-an-atheist-faq.htm

"Richard Watson states in his 1831 book, A Biblical and Theological Dictionary: “Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.”

Robert Flint, in his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories states: “Every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God.”

Strong Atheism
The strong atheist, also known as an explicit atheist or a positive atheist, denies the existence of God or any other deities. This person’s views are based solely on what can be found to be true using the scientific method. Since the existence of God cannot be proven using science, the strong atheist concludes that God doesn’t exist.

Weak Atheism
The second type of atheist is the weak atheist, also known as an implicit atheist or a negative atheist. This person does not deny the existence of God outright, but rather claims a religious relativism. That is, she would claim that anyone’s belief can be true for that person, but she doesn’t believe in God herself.

An Atheistic Worldview What are the implications for a religious atheist? Without God, he arrives at the necessary philosophies of moral relativism and naturalism. But does his view line up with objective reality? And is there any evidence for a God?

Learn More About Atheism."

BCReason: Therefore if you have no knowledge of gods and no belief in gods then you are an agnostic atheist.


If you have no knowledge of gods and have belief or unsure in gods then you are an agnostic.

Personally I have knowledge of God. I went to Sunday school, church, Young peoples at B in C on Perry Rd. I was a member of Inter School Christian Fellowship at Crossley. Was a Deacon at my church. I've been to Hindu temple, Sikh temple. Read Case For Christ.

Charles: Having a knowledge "of God" is honest. There is a difference between knowledge, I would say, "about God" and "knowing God". Many have a knowledge about God, fewer have a knowledge of God as a person who exhibits personal traits just as we do. The difference is like YOU knowing your Mother and me knowing your mother. 
YOU KNOW HER. I only KNOW ABOUT HER.

BCReason:




In all that I never found Evidence of God. I had questions that science answered better than religion. So lacking evidence and seeing superior answers in science I stopped believing.

Charles:
Now Brian, this is you. Did you never think that the two are NOT mutually exclusive? Many great scientists including most of those who started the belief in a scientific method were believers and many are today. [More later.]

BCReason:
I haven't stopped looking, that's why I started these arguments with you. However I found rather than reasoned argument, censorship*, deceit, personal attacks, strawmen, prejudice.

Charles: Could it be because of your "atheistic indoctrination" that you thought that? Of course I censor because it is my blog and many of your comments were actually belittling. How can I discuss with you anything if all you do is belittle me and my points?What knowledge is gained by insulting another person. I hope you were not insulted and belittled even tho I disagreed with you. If you were I apologize. It is always the farthest from my thoughts to belittle anyone. "Deceit" is what you sit on! Everyone has at least one! (:-)




BCReason:
If you're not going to be at least honest there's no point in continuing.

Charles:
I was honest from the start. Remember that someone else's idea of honesty may look like dishonesty if you disagree with it. You and I disagree but I knew it was not as much as your arguments indicated. Now I see the real you. I remember your teachers from Winger saying something like "Brian knows more about science than I do and I do not know how to answer him." I personally never felt that way. You were and are very keen when you are not being a "flamer".

As I hope you know BC, I love science and I always have been a very curious, "doubting Thomas" seldom accepting anything at face value. I came to know God not just about him and found that science and God are very compatible.

I look at Judaeo-Christianity as being an expose of "what" and of science as "how".

However these days science has often been taken over by bigots who instead of using the scientific method use insulting, firing, belittling and mocking of those who believe in an intelligent design. Therefore there is NO science when emotions and beliefs rule "proven fact" not theories but demonstrable facts.

BCReason:
*Fox news north can come to Canada I just don't want to be forced to pay for it.

Charles:
So you would rather pay for the CBC like we are? (:-) I personally think we should cut back greatly on the CBC. It has great programs such as the CBC News is generally reliable but has bigotted interviewers from time to time who belittle the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali [sp?] who was as a Muslim female "circumcised" which is an obtrusive and cruel invasion of her body. Male circumcision on the other hand is like cutting off a mole, might temporarily hurt but not for long.
  
Most news media in Canada has a leftist bias. So much so that HonestReporting.ca Canada is kept in business reporting on the biassed and unfounded "reporting". When we have "news" I don't want someone's "views"! Just the facts! I think I can make up my own mind, thank you.

Remember if any payment goes on to have another channel aired it is generally payment TO THE GOVERNMENT not FROM the government. However often it is worthwhile for government in some areas to give tax breaks to encourage business to grow and that is okay and useful because jobs are provided for a community.


Charles:
Brian, here is one issue you may not have run across. I have taken it from the scientist who wrote it on Amazon.com in reference to a DVD.

Darwin's Dilemma is the DVD.


Here is the description of contents.

Darwin's Dilemma

Scientists and scholars answer questions about the Cambrian explosion and intelligent design
Virtual museum of Cambrian fossils
Reference library of books on the Cambrian explosion, evolution, and intelligent design
Music from the original score of Darwin's Dilemma
More than 60 minutes of extra features

---

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Darwin's Dilemma examines what many consider to be the most powerful refutation of Darwinian evolution - the Cambrian fossil record.

Charles Darwin realized that the fossil evidence did not support his theory of gradual, step-by-step evolutionary development. He hoped that future generations of scientists would make the discoveries necessary to validate his ideas.

Today, after more than 150 years of exploration fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era. Organisms that embody the major animal body plans that exist today. This remarkable explosion of life is truly Darwin's Dilemma and is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence.

Now the scientist's review: [Go to bottom of page.]

 

125 of 138 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Trilobites Meet Theology, April 16, 2010

By	Mark McMenamin "chronophile" (South Hadley, Massachusetts United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: Darwin's Dilemma (DVD)

My name is Mark McMenamin. I have completed a PhD on the fossils of the Cambrian Explosion, have published several books on the subject, and am a devout Christian. At the present time I am actively researching the latest fossil discoveries from Cambrian boundary strata.

This video is an outstanding success. It presents the design argument better than anything I have seen before. From the perspective of a scientist informed about the raw data, the main thrust of the film is absolutely correct. Just as Darwin (to his credit) pointed out, a robust Cambrian Explosion destroys the concept of evolution by gradual natural selection. If anything, the Cambrian event seems even more abrupt than it did in Darwin's day.

I wrote to both James Valentine and Simon Conway Morris after, to my astonishment, seeing them appear in this video. Valentine, although no Intelligent Design proponent to be sure, admits that epigenetic transmission of information (i.e., heritable information not transmitted by nuclear DNA) really does happen. This has huge implications for how we understand evolutionary change.

Although Simon Conway Morris admits that we do not fully understand evolution, he claims that the Cambrian event is uncomplicated natural selection at play. How can this be, when the Early Cambrian Chinese fossil chordate Myllokunmingia appears comparable in complexity to a modern catfish? This is sudden appearance of complexity, not ordinary microevolution. Andy Knoll at Harvard has been quoted recently as saying that it is natural selection all the way. Please, gentlemen, it is time to think more broadly, and it is past time to provide a persuasive scientific basis for these opinions about the efficacy of natural selection.

This is not to say that there are no ancestor-descendant connections across the Cambrian boundary. Dolf Seilacher has argued quite a bit with me about the Ediacaran fossil organism called Spriggina. Seilacher sees this fossil as a weird vendobiont creature, whereas I have evidence that it is the trilobite ancestor:

This said, I agree with Seilacher that most Ediacarans are bizarre and not closely related to Cambrian animals.

To conclude, biotic change through time has certainly taken place but this change is not random mutation mediated by gradual natural selection. The scientific community needs to distance itself from the taint of Darwin's defunct, socially corrosive theory. On the other hand, the Intelligent Design community needs to be careful, lest it seem to be dictating to God how He can or cannot create. It would be theologically problematic and silly to presume to allow God to create in one way (instantaneous fiat), but not in another (change through time).

Finally, with the Cambrian event we have a scientific and intellectual challenge of the first order. We need all hands on deck to bring this ship to port. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes in "Silver Blaze," we need to see the value of imagination, imagine what might have happened, act upon the supposition, and perhaps in the end, find ourselves justified. Let us proceed. I wish to congratulate creationists for (finally) making a substantive contribution to scientific discussion.

Sometimes Sad to be Right

Comments I have received from neo-atheists have unfortunately confirmed my past experiences. 

They have these characteristics.

• Ignoring the main points and NOT answering questions posed.
• Flaming: Using belittling, mocking and rude remarks INSTEAD of answering questions. This technique is always used to avoid answering and to take attention off yourself and try to put it on the other person [in this case, me (:-)

My main points have always been ignored and given long verbacious responses which DO NOT answer the points.

The Questions that Atheists will NEVER answer clearly are as follows.

• What per cent of the world's knowledge do you have? When pinned down, which usually takes much work on my part, they will usually grudgingly agree that they have less than 1% of the world's knowledge with caveats galore like "but knowledge is accumulative....you have to count all the world's knowledge .... Such caveats MAKE NO SENSE since ALL KNOWLEDGE INCLUDES KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. So if atheists wish to include all knowledge they MUST admit that millions believe in God which rather makes being an atheist moot. [If atheists are people that believe there is no God.

Second question I have asked and never received a cognizant answer is...

• Could God exist in the 99% of the world's knowledge that YOU do not have. I have NEVER yet received a "YES". It is always a "NO" and usually a "NO" with circular reasoning that strikes one the same as the farmer being asked how to get to a particular place and he says, "You can't get there from here." We all know that is nonsense.

Since atheists WILL NOT answer these two simple questions, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a discussion with them because they will not stick to the point..

• As a Christian I cannot be so arrogant as to say "There is NO possibility that God does not exist." There is a possibility. Why cannot atheists admit there might be a God? 
• However the possibility of there not being a God is the same as the possibility as taking a watch apart and shaking all the parts up in a bag and wondering how long you have to shake before the watch creates itself by chance. What  are the chances of that happening?  

Then the second experience I get are emotional flaming remarks [not all flaming but written to belittle what I have said AND STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS  


Quotations from Comments received which did not aid in discussion

• it was the butt of a lot of humour as they saw through the flaws of the argument rather quickly. [Since "butts" are not my thing I did not bother to waste my time to go to the site mentioned however they still have not answered the questions!]
• a field full of strawmen in your reply.
• enough projection for a multiplex theatre
• only through censorship that religion survives [when the same atheist wants to prevent the conservative TV channel run by Sun News to be established in Canada. Is that hyprocrisy or what? I guess he means ONLY atheists are allowed to censor?]
• another rather hypocritical comment was "putting political pressure on candidates and boycotting companies that don't agree with ...' [Again I guess it is okay to boycott "Fox News North" , start a facebook protest, but ONLY if you are an atheist who of course is against censoring....??? One might ask why are ONLY atheists allowed to do the things they do? Is it because they deem themselves smarter than others?]
• I am still waiting a REASONED response to my questions above but I get "cannot survive the light of reason".
• "I have avoided no question" ... [except of course answering directly YES or NO to my two main ones!]

I deleted the last two comments sent to me because they were even worse. However I should have saved them as an example of what NOT to do.

My final question to any religious atheists is

• Do you know of anyone smarter than you? Someone who may understand more than you do? Take today's world for example. Or take all of recorded history if you wish.

But as a favour to the reader, who do you think made the comments below? Was he smart or just a blind believer? [No fair peaking until you read it all!!! ]

What religious figure made the following statements?

All are Quotations

• I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.
• 
  
• Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers
• 
  
• let us not forget that knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life
• 
  
• If men as individuals surrender to the call of their elementary instincts, avoiding pain and seeking satisfaction only for their own selves, the result for them all taken together must be a state of insecurity, of fear, and of promiscuous misery.
• 
  
• If, besides that, they use their intelligence from an individualist, i.e., a selfish standpoint, building up their life on the illusion of a happy unattached existence, things will be hardly better.
• 
  
• In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
• 
  
• Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.
• 
  
• There lies the weaknesss of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but "bared the miracles." (That is, explained the miracles. - ed.)
• 
  
• I am also not a "Freethinker" in the usual sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition. My feeling is insofar religious as I am imbued with the consciousness of the insuffiency of the human mind to understand deeply the harmony of the Universe which we try to formulate as "laws of nature." It is this consciousness and humility I miss in the Freethinker mentality. 
• 
  
• I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. [There are some who say that this was not written by ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but since the statements in it were made in other places by the same individual it does seem to fit with his concepts. It could be that the reporter took notes and then fleshed out what the interviewee had said. ]
• 
  
• Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all.
• 
  
• I consider the Society of Friends [Quakers] the religious community which has the highest moral standards. As far as I know, they have never made evil compromises and are always guided by their conscience. In international life, especially, their influence seems to me very beneficial and effective.
• 
  
• In this sense I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves-such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine.
• 
  
• The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness.
• 
  
• In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.
• 
  
• What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.
• 
  
• If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.
• 
  
• Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth
• 
  
• No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
• 
  
• No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word
• 
  
• No man," he replied, "can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful
• 
  

Are you interested in who said these things? Did you read what he said? Do you think he was a stupid man? 

If you would like to know who it is then please email me at cpedley@yahoo.ca with your guess or with your question as to who it is.

I promise I will NOT use your email address or sell it or give it to any other people but ONLY use it to communicate with you as long as you will allow it. If you tell me to I will then delete your address from my contact list.

-Charles

Flaming Comments Not Acceptable