Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
The Out Campaign
by Richard Dawkins
In the dark days of 1940, the pre-Vichy French government was warned by its generals "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." After the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill growled his response: "Some chicken; some neck!" Today, the bestselling books of 'The New Atheism' are disparaged, by those who desperately wish to downplay their impact, as "Only preaching to the choir."
Some choir! Only?!
As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated. Our choir is a lot larger than many people realise. Religious people still outnumber atheists, but not by the margin they hoped and we feared. I base this not only on conversations during my book tour and the book tours of my colleagues Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but on widespread informal surveys of the World Wide Web. Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube whose denizens are reassuringly young. Moreover, even if the religious have the numbers, we have the arguments, we have history on our side, and we are walking with a new spring in our step — you can hear the gentle patter of our feet on every side.
Our choir is large, but much of it remains in the closet. Our repertoire may include the best tunes, but too many of us are mouthing the words sotto voce with head bowed and eyes lowered. It follows that a major part of our consciousness-raising effort should be aimed, not at converting the religious but at encouraging the non-religious to admit it — to themselves, to their families, and to the world. This is the purpose of the OUT campaign.
Before I go any further, I must forestall one major risk of misunderstanding. The obvious comparison with the gay community is vulnerable to going too far: to 'outing' as a transitive verb whose object might be an unfortunate individual not yet — or not ever — ready to confide in the world. Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves. This may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death.
The OUT campaign has potentially as many sides to it as you can think of words to precede "out". "Come OUT" has pride of place and is the one I have so far dealt with. Related to it is "Reach OUT" in friendship and solidarity towards those who have come out, or who are contemplating that step which, depending on their family or home town prejudices, may require courage. Join, or found local support groups and on-line forums. Speak OUT, to show waverers they are not alone. Organize conferences or campus events. Attend rallies and marches. Write letters to the local newspaper. Lobby politicians, at local and national level. The more people come out and are known to have done so, the easier will it be for others to follow.
Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem. If in doubt, read PZ Myers's exuberant hortation at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php.
"Keep" OUT worried me at first, because it sounds unfriendly and exclusive, like the Barcelona Travel Agent whose travel poster, in well-meant English, read "Go Away!" "Keep OUT" here means, of course, keep religion out of science classes, and similar expressions of the US constitutional separation between church and state (Britain has no such separation, unfortunately). As yet another delightful T-shirt put it, "Don't pray in our school, and I won't think in your church." Lobby your local school board. Quote Christopher Hitchens: "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall."
Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.
What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.
Break OUT! Some might like to throw 'coming OUT' parties where they joyously celebrate the courage of those who have decided to put behind them the habits of a lifetime, or the habits of their ancestors, embrace a realistic and superstition-free life and Break OUT into the real world. Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom, Break OUT the champagne.
http://OutCampaign.org
Some choir! Only?!
As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated. Our choir is a lot larger than many people realise. Religious people still outnumber atheists, but not by the margin they hoped and we feared. I base this not only on conversations during my book tour and the book tours of my colleagues Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but on widespread informal surveys of the World Wide Web. Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube whose denizens are reassuringly young. Moreover, even if the religious have the numbers, we have the arguments, we have history on our side, and we are walking with a new spring in our step — you can hear the gentle patter of our feet on every side.
Our choir is large, but much of it remains in the closet. Our repertoire may include the best tunes, but too many of us are mouthing the words sotto voce with head bowed and eyes lowered. It follows that a major part of our consciousness-raising effort should be aimed, not at converting the religious but at encouraging the non-religious to admit it — to themselves, to their families, and to the world. This is the purpose of the OUT campaign.
Before I go any further, I must forestall one major risk of misunderstanding. The obvious comparison with the gay community is vulnerable to going too far: to 'outing' as a transitive verb whose object might be an unfortunate individual not yet — or not ever — ready to confide in the world. Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves. This may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death.
The OUT campaign has potentially as many sides to it as you can think of words to precede "out". "Come OUT" has pride of place and is the one I have so far dealt with. Related to it is "Reach OUT" in friendship and solidarity towards those who have come out, or who are contemplating that step which, depending on their family or home town prejudices, may require courage. Join, or found local support groups and on-line forums. Speak OUT, to show waverers they are not alone. Organize conferences or campus events. Attend rallies and marches. Write letters to the local newspaper. Lobby politicians, at local and national level. The more people come out and are known to have done so, the easier will it be for others to follow.
Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem. If in doubt, read PZ Myers's exuberant hortation at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php.
"Keep" OUT worried me at first, because it sounds unfriendly and exclusive, like the Barcelona Travel Agent whose travel poster, in well-meant English, read "Go Away!" "Keep OUT" here means, of course, keep religion out of science classes, and similar expressions of the US constitutional separation between church and state (Britain has no such separation, unfortunately). As yet another delightful T-shirt put it, "Don't pray in our school, and I won't think in your church." Lobby your local school board. Quote Christopher Hitchens: "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall."
Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.
What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.
Break OUT! Some might like to throw 'coming OUT' parties where they joyously celebrate the courage of those who have decided to put behind them the habits of a lifetime, or the habits of their ancestors, embrace a realistic and superstition-free life and Break OUT into the real world. Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom, Break OUT the champagne.
http://OutCampaign.org
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, July 30, 2007 | PermalinkComments 251 - 300 of 728 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers252. Comment #60163 by Philip1978 on August 1, 2007 at 7:32 am
Its tough being a deity isnt it, you ask people to have a nice cup of Tea completely of their choice, promising them it will be a nice cuppa and then people start swinging cats towards their backs! Other Comments by Philip1978
253. Comment #60166 by Katherine on August 1, 2007 at 7:52 am
Any suggestions as to how I can join this campaign without being evicted from my house, inhabited by 3 other people, all of whom are Christian? Other Comments by Katherine
254. Comment #60167 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 7:59 am
I know, Phillip. I'm trying to discourage my worshippers from doing this. In my first incarnation, my Aztec worshippers tried doing something similar, but the nearest cat-like animal they had was a jaguar. Very messy. It fell out of practice surprisingly quickly. Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
255. Comment #60168 by Yorker on August 1, 2007 at 8:05 am
Aha, I didn't realise there were so many tea-ists here! I'm one myself and imbibe around ten mugs of it per day. I hope none of you stoop so low as brew in a metal vessel using those horrid bag things.Other Comments by Yorker
256. Comment #60169 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 8:06 am
Katherine- getting involved doesn't necessarily mean having to be vocal about it. I suppose what you feel able to do depends on how understanding your housemates are of your views. Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
257. Comment #60171 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 8:17 am
Katherine, if your housemates are good friends they will respect your views. If not, I think it is always important to do what you feel is right and not bow to peer pressure. If they expect you to say grace at meal times etc, then you could start by pointing out that you dont believe in it. I found a lot of my christian "friends" stoped hanging out when I started to lose my faith, but you always have to be true to yourself. You never know, your housemates may harbour secret doubts - that was something else I found about some of my other christian friends. You could find a local brights group to meet like minded individuals.Good Luck
Other Comments by BillySands
258. Comment #60172 by SRWB on August 1, 2007 at 8:23 am
Being evicted from your house? Is that really a Christian thing to do? Is that what Jesus would have done? Throw that back at them if you have any trouble.But what do they think of you now? Do they know you are an atheist? Do they think of you as a decent, moral person? If so, what does wearing a t-shirt change?
Other Comments by SRWB
259. Comment #60173 by The Wee Flea on August 1, 2007 at 8:23 am
I am sitting with 54 pages of comments so you will forgive me if I cannot respond to them all. Perhaps I should begin by reminding ourselves what we are discussing it is the current 'Out' campaign which is designed by selling t-shirts, setting up 'fellowship' groups etc to encourage atheists to actually to what? I havn't a clue. Anyway it is not about me, or my Church, or homosexuality, or Scotland, or the Pope or the 101 other tangents that people go off on. So with that in mind let me try and return to the subject and respond to at least some of these comments.137. Comment #59957 by steve99
Sorry Steve it cannot be right that in every thread you bring up the question of homosexuality. If everyone was to do that with their pet subjects then the whole purpose of discussion would be meaningless. Why don't you get Richard to write something on homosexuality how in terms of evolutionary biology it makes perfect sense and is a good way of preserving our genes and then I will be more than happy to enter into a discussion. Or you could post something on our website. But I am not going to answer questions about homosexuality or the Pope etc every time I post on a thread here.
139. Comment #59960 by pewkatchoo
"But then I forgot, you lot are so used to burning people like us at the stake as heretics and blasphemers so have a bit of a problem with the values of liberty don't you?"
Cheap. Pointless. And completely untrue. However that is par for the course. Glad to see you are keeping up the atheist standards!
"So basically, what I am saying is, it is none of your flaming business. Your questions are illegitimate because you are not qualified to ask them."
I see. Uncomfortable questions should not be asked. Just why is it wrong to ask one of the best scientists in the world when he last produced a scientific paper?
141. Comment #59962 by scottishgeologist on July 31, 2007 at 8:37 am
"The point I was making which you dont seem to want to address is that Dawkins et al have got the religious types in a tail spin. They are scurrying about trying to get the upper hand again."
This is just more wishful thinking. Most of the religious people I know do not regard Dawkins as a threat and certainly do not see it in terms of power or getting the upper hand. In fact we are rather pleased that God etc is back to the top of the agenda. We know that most fundamentalist atheist won't and can't debate but what you have done is create a tremendous opportunity for us to reach the vast majority of people who profess to be agnostics. Thanks!
142. Comment #59963 by Yorker on July 31, 2007 at 8:40 am
"Are you, as I am, willing to accept there is a possibility however slight, that your belief is simply wrong?"
"I put this to every religite I ever meet who engages me on the subject of religion, including the ones I always invite into my house when they come door-knocking. In 40 years not a single one has ever said "yes", they can't, they are fully aware that debate on such a simple equal footing would be disastrous for them. "
Yorker the answer to your question is simply Yes. No where does that leave you? And it seems to me that the vast majority of atheists on this website have no doubts whatsoever that they are right. So where does that leave them?
143. Comment #59964 by epeeist on July 31, 2007 at 8:42 am
"And the post I was responding to is no better "as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots"
You know I thin the poster who earlier said that fundamentalists have no sense of humour is right. I was of course referring to Richards comment that atheists gently walk around.
145. Comment #59968 by Quetzalcoatl on July 31, 2007 at 9:06 am
"Thanks for the clarification on my query- one final point though, if I may. What I was getting at is that some Christians see humans as being born "Damned", because of Adam and Eve's sin. From your comments I get the impression that you do not see it quite that way, or at least would not phrase it like that. Is that accurate?"
I think that human beings are born with a corrupt nature but I think they are judged because of what they do, not what they are born with. Does that help?
146. Comment #59969 by BicycleRepairMan on July 31, 2007 at 9:07 am
"Ouch, I think our little flea just broke one of them commandments thingies. You have obviously NEVER read The Ancestor's Tale, and this post reveals it so obviously."
Please explain why. I realise that most of the book is taken up with evolution but there are still at least five pages which come make the usual Dawkins quantum leap and somehow manage to turn this into an attack on God.
149. Comment #59972 by Elli on July 31, 2007 at 9:25 am
Thanks for your comments. I am deeply concerned about your devotion to the false religion of Arsenal surely you should at least graduate to West Ham?!
2. I have no personal dislike of RD I do not even know him to dislike. And I do not see how you gather that from my second point. The notion that one cannot know things from official sources and studies but rather from a casual glance at the Internet is one that I find both mildly amusing and somewhat alarming.
151. Comment #59974 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 9:48 am
"The Wee Flea is certainly silly."
Good point! Indeed its so devastating that I have nothing to say whatever. I have been floored by your brilliance, your crystal clear analysis and your logical argument. Anything I say would just pale into insignificance compared with such light so I will have to leave you to it. Sorry .I can't compete. I am a very silly man and I must go and make penance at the shrine of Monty Python
152. Comment #59975 by firemancarl on July 31, 2007 at 9:51 am
"The religious appearantly cannot grasp that athiests dont need to huddle together in their groups to profess their beliefs."
Indeed which is why you have this 'out' campaign!
153. Comment #59976 by _J_ on July 31, 2007 at 9:55 am
"Well, there are just so many of you! It's like fighting the hydra every time one interview takes place, millions of the variously faithful shake their heads and say 'Well, that's not my belief'."
I'm not actually sure that is the case. Of course there are millions of Christians just as there are millions of atheists but there are not millions of Christians who would be prepared to debate Dawkins on his own terms. Why won't he step up to the plate?
154. Comment #59978 by huxley_leopard on July 31, 2007 at 10:02 am
"At least atheists admit there is a possibility they could be wrong. That's the difference."
Really. I have noticed the humility, doubt, and lack of certainty shining through on the posts on these websites. In fact it is almost Pythonesque we are right and we know we are and one of the reasons that we know we are right is that we are prepared to admit we may be wrong. Go figure!
I am a Christian and I admit I could be wrong.
158. Comment #59983 by wagnerpe on July 31, 2007 at 10:53 am
Just out of interest, why are you so certain that this campaign will not breed hatred and intolerance? There are a lot of damaged people out there looking for a scapegoat. I have certainly experienced a great deal of hatred, discrimination, intolerance and even violence because I am a Christian. Why should the world be any different now?
160. Comment #59985 by Philip1978 on July 31, 2007 at 11:06 am
I don't really disagree with you. Religion can be a terrible nightmare and can cause added harm and distress in the situations you describe. Mainly because of false theology and teaching. We faced a similar situation in my church where a woman was staying with a man who beat her badly because she felt it was her Christian duty. We advised her strongly that it was her Christian duty to get out and thankfully she did. Your friend needed good theology, warm support and encouragement that her husband was not doing what God wanted.
163. Comment #59989 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 11:23 am
"Don't forget Philip1978, until very recently, many religions (including the catholics) did not deem it a sin for a man to hit his wife -- in fact, they encouraged it if the man felt she deserved it for not being subservient enough."
I'm afraid that this is the kind of atheist urban myth which gives you guys such a bad name. Could you list please the 'many religions' which encourage men to beat their wifes? Without empirical evidence please be silent.
167. Comment #59994 by Ole on July 31, 2007 at 11:46 am
Ole,
What a pleasant surprise! Great to hear from you. As regards Princess Martha Louise I cannot say anything about her personally etc but I think that her beliefs are nuts and the fact that they are so popular in Norway is a sad proof of G K Chesterton's maixim that "when a people cease to believe in God it is not that they believe in nothing, it is more that they will believe in anything'.
175. Comment #60004 by Elli on July 31, 2007 at 12:12 pm
"I wasn't aware of this. I guess it just means he is trolling, as I am very confident that these points would have been responded to most eloquently and cogently by many people on other threads. Given this, David, you have clearly made your point on these issues and there is no need for you to continue to restate your position. "
Given this criteria Elli there would virtually be no threads on this website and no more posts. Once you have been on here long enough you will realise that most posts can be summed up under religion is rubbish, religion is dangerous, anyone who does not think so is a stupid faithhead, RD is great, and the Pope is the anti-Christ ..
As regards my use of the words religion and fundamentalist. I think that many of the people on this site hold a philosophical position based on presuppositions which they cannot prove and hold it to the point of fundamentalist dogmatism. The behaviour of some of the posters only reinforces that impression.
183. Comment #60015 by scottishgeologist on July 31, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Again not wuite sure what the Scottish FP church has to do with this discussion is this not a bit of an unhealthy obcession with you?
"The minister of Paisley Free Church came out as gay and had to leave - this was just last year."
You really ought to be careful about spreading gossip about which you clearly know very little. The minister concerned and his wife are friends of mine indeed they met in my church. He was forced to resign his post not because he was gay (indeed there was another minister in the same Presbytery at that time who also indicated he was gay and he was actually asked to stay) but because he left his wife. Homosexual or heterosexual we would have done the same thing. The whole situation is for me a personal and painful one but I do wish you would at least get your facts right before spreading tittle tattle like some Glasgow fish wifie.
186. Comment #60026 by Logicel on July 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm
"I agree with your psychological assessment of D. Robertson. However, as is the case with wonked-out individuals, they think they are JUST FINE. "
Hilarious. I love it! The definition of someone who is mad is someone who denies it when you accuse them of being mad. Superb. You could not make this stuff up .
187. Comment #60027 by Corylus on July 31, 2007 at 2:31 pm
"ry for a moment to set aside the fact that the 'letter' in question is dreadfully argued and completely unstructured, ignore the arguments written and, instead think about the kind of person that would actually write this. "
Of course Ellie, Corylus can not trust you to read it for himself (maybe its because he is an inherent sexist?). He has to tell you what to think and how to look at it. Personally I think it actually well structured. As for encouraging you to ignore the arguments used you wonder why I use the word 'fundamentalist'?!
And I am not 'kind'. Oh diddums. I upset the poor wee atheist. He, on the other hand, feels free to sepcualte about my mental health, my wife and other pointless issues that at least protect him from ever having to think about any of the arguments. Oops, sorry. I did it again. Not kind .
188. Comment #60028 by Henri Bergson on July 31, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Oh dear,
It seems as if a pathetic village vicar (weaflea) has ruffled your feathers.
I agree with him that many of you are Dawkin ACOLYTES.
Of course the flea's beliefs are absurd, but you help his cause by your herd-like behaviour. Become your own gods following is the religious impulse.
Henri be careful. I predict that your reasonable point will soon be swamped by a wave of vitriol. If you are an atheist you are a traitor and if you are a faithhead nothing more needs to be said (but probably will)
189. Comment #60029 by ricey on July 31, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I am inclined to agree with you. If I was an atheist your position would at least make logical sense.
:-)
191. Comment #60033 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 2:55 pm
"Belief in something that we have no knowledge of and which we can't be said to have experienced is a dishonest belief."
I agree entirely. So whats your problem?
195. Comment #60039 by Hobbit on July 31, 2007 at 3:32 pm
"As for the statement above, atheist will use political power to discriminate. Hmmmm! I think the key word you have used there is POWER. Religious doctrine, of any brand, is not about god or the magic book etc. it is about power and control."
I will partially agree with you. A great deal of religious doctrine is about power but not all. Love your enemy and do good to those who hate is not about power.
And I have no fear of atheism. I feel sorry for atheists because you are missing out on the best part of being human!
And I find it hilarious that you think I am in a position of power! What power would that be? Please let me know. Now if I was an Oxford Professor with ready access to the media, my own website and fanbase and a million seller book, that would be power. But I guess that kind of power is ok?
208. Comment #60062 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 5:59 pm
"Perhaps you are confusing them with the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) which is staunchly conservative, not allowing non-whites or women as ministers (for instance). "
Yet more illinofrmed prejudice and gossip. I recently listened to an African American PCA minister preach and attended a conference with about 20 others. O well as they say in Scotland 'facts are cheisl that winna ding!"
211. Comment #60065 by Charlou on July 31, 2007 at 6:15 pm
"New people, children, are like blank canvases"
Fascinating and such old fashioned rubbish. The tabla rasa doctrine of human nature (the blank slate) is one, that thanks to modern genetics, is now completely rubbished. We are not born blank with no character traits etc.
If you read TGD you will see that RD cites people who believe that people are inherently theists/creationists and need to be taught otherwise (indoctriniation anyone?).
"What is the best way to bring up a happy, confident, well behaved person with positive values? A positive, nurturing environment and positive reinforcement. "
Totally agree. And a good healthy religious environment is the best way to provide that.
. 212. Comment #60066 by Graham on July 31, 2007 at 6:20 pm
") "widespread informal surveys of the Web" -
Should no scientist ever have an opinion or cast a vote in an election because of insufficient data?"
But RD wasa not voting. He was making a statement of fact. Without any empirical evidence.
"4) "as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots" - Depends who you are comparing to, the little old lady at the back of the church or the 911 terrorists. "
Yawn. I wish you people could read. I was referring to RD's quote about gently walking.
"This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate." - I agree, this "campaign" is all about being more discriminating about beliefs, NOT people."
Of course. And what about the people who hold those beliefs and refuse to give them up. Will you adopt the Harris position?
Anyway I have managed to reduce 54 pages to 11. And yes I am going to Bulgaria but not until after the weekend I have a few more children to indoctrinate, women to oppress and atheists to suppress. O for the good old days of the Scottish Inquisition!
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
260. Comment #60174 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 8:32 am
Yes, good luck, Katherine.I'd definitely recommend being extremely nice about their beliefs. When in the largely-shared spaces of university, I found that overtly religious people (a minority) tended to win respect (and occasional subsequent conversions) chiefly by being nice, understanding, and non-confrontational - but also honest and unembarrassed about their beliefs when asked. This seems like equally sensible behaviour for an atheist in a theist-rich environment.
By the way: lovely owl. You've just made me spend ten minutes going 'Aww' and 'Wow' at pictures in Wikipedia.
Yorker - my pot is of metal and my tea occasionally comes in bags. I have an illustrious precedent on the bags: witness Douglas Adams' piece of teavangelism, as reproduced in The Salmon of Doubt. But, is metal bad?
Other Comments by _J_
261. Comment #60175 by Elli on August 1, 2007 at 8:34 am
Thanks to Logicel and Corylus for your kind words. I read that letter Robertson wrote (which Corylus linked) and it certainly was a strange read. My eyes are now bleeding and my brain itches. Henri, I am going to have to agree with the others on the issue of sycophantic dawkinism. On the surface, I tentatively agree with you regarding the general notion of individualism and avoiding herd mentality and groupthink. But in practice, the other posters here have made me aware of the nuances of such an outlook. I know nothing of Nietzsche other than "there's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist" (apologies to Eric Idle) but the posts of Robert Maynard make a lot of sense to me. If we agree with someone's opinion on a topic does this instantly make us devoted followers? Of course not, as you agree. But if we find ourselves repeatedly agreeing with someone's opinion, how should we act in order to not become an acolyte, as you term it? Should we deliberately express views which are contrary to our own conclusions simply to avoid the possibility of agreeing too much with a certain individual? It seems a bit much. This site happens to be a Dawkins website, but it is also one of the very few outlets for this type of forum and critique of media. If someone has an avatar with a humurous depiction of the website's namesake does this render them a sycophant? - surely not, I say!
Quetzalcoatl, is green tea with ginger and fresh mint worthy of your exalted praise?
Katherine, if these people you live with are your friends and care about you, they should be happy for you to express yourself honestly and respect your rights to harmlessly live sans deity.
Other Comments by Elli
262. Comment #60176 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 8:35 am
But, is metal bad?
Trust me J, metal isn't bad. My previous worshippers the Aztecs certainly wished that they'd had a little more of it when the Spaniards came a'callin'.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
263. Comment #60178 by kkant on August 1, 2007 at 8:36 am
Robert Maynard in comment 60053:Well said Mr. Maynard.
I wish this would be enough to permanently expose the theists who repeatedly pollute this forum with the same old thoroughly refuted arguments, presenting them as if they were something new and valid.
Sadly I'm sure we'll see Wee Flea and the others again, making the same fallacious comments as before.
Other Comments by kkant
264. Comment #60179 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 8:37 am
Elli-all teas are acceptable to me. I am an all-inclusive deity. Listen not to the whispers of the sceptical J, for he will see the light.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
265. Comment #60182 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 8:57 am
Hi David,You remind us that this thread is abaout the out campaign, then you go off at tangents. Who's being an inconsistent and silly boy then?
You still didn't answer my question about forcing islam on your children. I think that I know the answer, but I want to hear you say it - after all, I could be wrong and you may actually think that forcing the bible on children is equally wrong.
That brings me to the next point - you say you could be wrong. Come on, you dont really believe that do you? The reason I say that is because elsewhere you talk of the certainty of god's existence? So have you developed doubts, learned to reason or just internally inconsistant?
As for your comment on sin, I hope quetz doesn't mind me asking - I'm sure you will ignore my challenge and make some predictable insult. You acknowledge then that we are born sinful (I dont, we are born human). It sureley would then be evil of a hypothetical god to send sinners to hell then.
"I agree with your psychological assessment of D. Robertson. However, as is the case with wonked-out individuals, they think they are JUST FINE. "
Hilarious. I love it! The definition of someone who is mad is someone who denies it when you accuse them of being mad. Superb. You could not make this stuff up .
Cant he see the irony of this comment :-)
Of course Ellie, Corylus can not trust you to read it for himself (maybe its because he is an inherent sexist?).
Yes, Elli, you be a good little girl and dont you worry your pretty little head about that nasty Corylus.
Tell me David according to many in your church (perhaps even you), what is a woman's place again?
Lets consult St Paul shall we? God has it in for women, and lays all the blame for the original sin on Eve (1Tim. 2:12-14), and women are the property of men and were created for men, because we are superior. They must be silent in church and never hold authority over men, or even teach a man (1Cor. 11:8-9, 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1Tim.2:11-14). All however is not lost, as a woman can be saved through childbirth (1Tim. 2:15). The only problem is that God would rather men didn't get married (1Cor. 7:8), and for those lucky enough to get a man, child birth will be incredibly painful because women are evil simnners that corrupted gods perfect creation (Gen.3:16). Your god is a misogynist. You believe in moral absolutes, perhaps you could justify making a woman marry her rapist - and to add insult to injury, it is her father that must be compensated (Deut 22:28-29). And tell me why driving up chocholate alley way is wrong? All you can say is its in the bible - seems a poor justification to me
finally Love your enemy and do good to those who hate is not about power. Since when have you treated people who disagree with you that way. Even Quetz, J and Philip get the occasional Ad hominem thrown at them. You case most of your own problems on this site. I predict that if you practice that, things will improve and folk could have a discussion without the gratuitous sweeping insults hurled by you.
OK one more DO YOU ACCEPT THAT LABELLING THE POPE AS THE ANTICHRIST FUELS HATE - AND BY SAYING SO YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO SECTARIAN HATRED?
And dont pretend it is off thread because most of your comments are not about the thread.
Other Comments by BillySands
266. Comment #60183 by Elli on August 1, 2007 at 9:02 am
holy crap Robertson! (and I chose those words carefully). I should not engage you in this conversation as you clearly are an internet troll. I really wonder why you are on this site at all - it speaks volumes to me about your state of mind... in fact your general use of language and references also reveals one twisted little mind. I will correct you on one thing as you totally misrepresented me - and how you are fully prepared to bare faced lie is amazing to me given your holier than thou attitude. So much for the religious having better morals - Robertson just proves that religion in fact corrupts morality. I never suggested that people can not know things from official sources and studies but rather from casual glances at the internet. This is what you claim I say, and claim Dawkin's says. Let me quote it word for word from your lying mouth:
The notion that one cannot know things from official sources and studies but rather from a casual glance at the Internet is one that I find both mildly amusing and somewhat alarming.
I spoke very clearly about possible reasons for official studies being insufficient given the personal nature of the content, and that internet polling can *AUGMENT* these studies. You then deliberately misrepresent me and make it seem I say something different.
THIS IS ABHORRENT AND DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR. YOU ARE A LIAR AND DELIBERATELY SEEK TO DECEIVE OTHERS. I am convinced that it is religion that corrupts the minds of people like you to justify behaviour which is otherwise socially and morally unacceptable. You are a case study in this. Your bigotry towards homosexuals disgusts me, as does your prejudice towards people who choose to separate from their spouses rather than suffer through a miserable loveless charade.
(it seems I got a little more worked up there than I thought I would! ;-) I guess I was warned by others and didn't listen... back to my green tea)
Other Comments by Elli
267. Comment #60184 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 9:07 am
Well said Elli. He is more to be pitied than scolded - but scolding can be fun.here is another thread where david gets a "fisting" over homosexuality http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1197,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Robert-Winston,Today-BBC,page1#comments
You will see he is very one dimentional. We tend not to ban him because he is like a ferral pet that we hope one day sees the light. He is also good for silent doubters who read these threads
Other Comments by BillySands
268. Comment #60186 by scottishgeologist on August 1, 2007 at 9:11 am
David Wee Flea said, regarding the gay minister:"but I do wish you would at least get your facts right before spreading tittle tattle like some Glasgow fish wifie."
Ehhm, David, I was told this some time ago by a Free Church Minister! A minister in the Presbytery which covers Paisley!
So someone, somewhere is lying. OK, lets be charitable, maybe he just got his facts wrong.
Which just goes to show, you cant believe or trust a word that preachers say - Mind you that's hardly a startling revelation...after all they take solemn ordination vows regarding the Westminster Confession then just ignore the bits they dont like.
And when it comes to tittle tattle, the average member of the average church congregation will beat me hands down any day! I'll admit it, I'm no match, I concede defeat!
Anyway "Glasgow fish wifie?" Sounds a bit sexist to me... but then, if you believe that this sort of stuff is "the word of God", then its hardly surprising:
"Ephesians 5:22-24: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (NIV)"
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
269. Comment #60187 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 9:21 am
Glasgow fish wifie? I always thought it was Glasgow sweetie wifie and Aberdonian fish wifie. Sexist and inaccurate! Other Comments by BillySands
270. Comment #60188 by scottishgeologist on August 1, 2007 at 9:22 am
Wee Flea said: ""What is the best way to bring up a happy, confident, well behaved person with positive values? A positive, nurturing environment and positive reinforcement. "Totally agree. And a good healthy religious environment is the best way to provide that. "
RELIGIOUS environment?! WTF??! This is the guy who in a previous thread says he "hates" religion!!
And reinforces it with his comment at the end of one of his letters to Dawkins:
"I am delighted to be a non-religious believer"
A bloke I know once received an email from a guy who used to be a Free Church minister - I dont actually know the ex-minister, but he apparently said in the email "religion f*cks your head"
QED
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
271. Comment #60189 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 9:23 am
Wee Flea- yes, that clarifies it nicely. Related question- if humans are judged not on their corrupt nature, but their actions, and a hypothetical person lives their life in a very moral, decent way, as good a person as it is possible for anyone to be, but DOES not accept Jesus as his saviour, do you think he would go to Hell? Would that be right? Isn't this him being judged for his nature? Also-
"'facts are cheisl that winna ding!"
What the heck does that mean? Does anyone have an English to Scottish dictionary? Billy?
Billy- of course I don't mind you asking him.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
272. Comment #60190 by SRWB on August 1, 2007 at 9:24 am
Elli,David is at least predictable and direct, unlike the redoubtable DG. You sound like you need something a little stronger - try a Long Island Iced Tea
Quetz - is this "tea" acceptable?
Other Comments by SRWB
273. Comment #60191 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 9:28 am
All teas and beverages are acceptable. Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
274. Comment #60193 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 9:31 am
Hey SG, to quote Mugatu "I must be on crazy pills. Am I the only one who can see it?"
Of coure there is only one person here who cant see it.
I'm off to indulge in some lapsang souchong - bliss!
Yorker, you were lucky tit 'ave tea bags. When I were a lad, we 'ad tit make do with hedge clippins and an old sock we found down tit dump. Them minister would come round and drink all our tea before sending us down pit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
Other Comments by BillySands
275. Comment #60194 by irate_atheist on August 1, 2007 at 9:33 am
Wee Flea - As one man wisely said: "If one man calls you an ass, ignore him. If the whole village calls you an ass, get thee a saddle."
Where's your saddle?
Other Comments by irate_atheist
276. Comment #60196 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 9:41 am
Quetz,He is now (mis)quoting Burns as authority. He is either speaking in tongues or he means
Facts are chiels that winna ding
Facts can't be denied
Personally I am a native English speaking Scot though. This may help you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scNLfr1EP08
PS he is our new professor of divinity
Other Comments by BillySands
277. Comment #60197 by Fire1974 on August 1, 2007 at 9:47 am
WeeFlea:As I am late in the discussion here, would it be too much of me to ask that we make our positions clear. I'll go first.
An atheist(which I am) is one who sees no evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity and therefore does not lend creedence to claims for its existence so long as there is no evidence for this deity with whom we humans are said to have a cause/effect relationship. To quote Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
What is your position exactly? By way of comparison, where do your beliefs stand in relation to the Nicene Creed?
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen."
How many of these statements of belief do you find Baseless?
If you find many of them so, how do you still consider yourself a Christian?
Other Comments by Fire1974
278. Comment #60198 by Graham on August 1, 2007 at 9:54 am
Wee Flea: "Yawn. I wish you people could read."I think you need to take a deep breath. Remember every comment was posted by an individual. The "Yawn" and "you people" suggest the poster (me) is boring and incapable of thinking for themselves. These ad homs are not the way to win respect for your ideas, and remember we are talking about ideas, not people. Your ad homs have disqualified yourself from serious consideration until such time as you are prepared to rise above such petty language. Goodbye.
Other Comments by Graham
279. Comment #60201 by scottishgeologist on August 1, 2007 at 10:00 am
Billy. Love that video - it is really funny. Neds are an amazingly rich vein of humour, almost as good as certain ministers..... (You'll be familiar with glasgowsurvival.co.uk?)Totally off topic I know, but have you ever seen the Youtube Buckfast drinking vids? A "boatal o' buckie" in 7 seconds i think is the record! Do a search for Buckfast and you'll find a pile.
Hey!!!! The lightbulb goes on !!! WE NEED TO SEND TANKER LOADS OF BUCKFAST TO ISLAMIST COUNTRIES!! That'll kill their jihadism stone dead.
and its made by monks of course so we can claim a blow for the True Faith (tm)
Sorted!
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
280. Comment #60202 by Canuck#1 on August 1, 2007 at 10:01 am
I am exhausted...I have just finished 269 comments re the T-shirts and I have one Question "What's it all about Alfie?" I do think I see a pattern.........1. Discussion about the T-shirts - Why? When? If? Where?
2. A comment from the wea flee...a conservative,fundamentalist, fundie (by the way these individuls take this designation as a compliment) who gives his views on the topic plus some general observations......
3.The "members" of this web site respond in a nuber of ways.....
a) a logical discussion of his points
b) rants that dimiss his points as rubbish
c) personal attacks on his intelligence, his character....
4. He (the wee flea) replies, including a number of return jibes...
5. See 3. a b and c
The best part turned out to be the blooming of "romance", some humorous comments on the romance, some challenges to duels at dawn....moe exciting than your aveage site BooBoo....
Other Comments by Canuck#1
281. Comment #60203 by SharonMcT on August 1, 2007 at 10:03 am
Elli:Loved your post (270).
Quetz:
All beverages, or all tea beverages? Because I hate to be sacrilegeous, I really do, but I prefer coffee. ;)
Other Comments by SharonMcT
282. Comment #60208 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 10:11 am
Thanks SG a bottle of buckie a day keeps the sanity at bay.I thought freeze dried neds would make good pets. Just add buckie and poof! ned infestation. Unlike cats that bring you mice, they will bring you cool things like DVD players and playstations.
Haw big man huv ye seen http://www.bloodbus.com/
It's pure mental.
Other Comments by BillySands
283. Comment #60214 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 10:29 am
weeflea:I am a Christian and I admit I could be wrong.Cool.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
284. Comment #60216 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 10:31 am
Yay I thought maybe you were in Bulgaria by now!Hello, David,
On your response to steve99:
Why don't you get Richard to write something on homosexuality how in terms of evolutionary biology it makes perfect sense and is a good way of preserving our genes
That's a bit of a cheap shot! Kinda sly, but it relies on straw-man misrepresentations of evolutionary theory and of non-theistic conceptions of morality and society. Is Down's Syndrome good for preserving the genes? Is it a sin? How about those people who have absolutely no sex drive or interest in sex? Are they sinful?
I understand that you don't want to 'answer questions about homosexuality or the Pope etc every time [you] post on a thread', but if you've covered this elsewhere, can you quickly post a reference to the thread here? Religiously-sanctioned homophobia was one of the things that got me started on questioning my own Christianity not because I'm gay (though it seems that in life's grand genetic lottery I could easily have been) but because the whole thing seemed like a baseless excuse for acting on destructive personal prejudices. When I raise this with nice, reasonable Christians, they usually start walking crab-wise around the issue. I'd love to see a clear, sensible response on the subject.
On your response to scottishgeologist:
[ ]what you have done is create a tremendous opportunity for us to reach the vast majority of people who profess to be agnostics. Thanks!
Well, it's good news for everyone! You started out your post by saying:
the current 'Out' campaign [ is designed ] to encourage atheists to actually to what?
You, who are accustomed to missions and ministries as intrinsic parts of your worldview, surely can't find it that baffling that another view that has hitherto not bothered with such evangelism might start to speak up for itself. If our doing so increases your opportunities for expressing your own position well, it's champagne and party hats all round, isn't it?
I get the impression that the evangelistically religious have tended to see evangelism as like fishing, plucking converts out of placid, yielding water. There's been nothing to remind you that when you say to an outsider 'There's a God', you are also saying 'So your current beliefs are wrong'. Now that atheism speaks up for itself, you find that it's not so much fishing as an arm-wrestle. Either you're wrong or we are (or we both are). In truth, it's always been that way, but our lot tended not to make much of it. Things like the 'Come OUT' campaign are just examples of our attempts to level the playing field. I'm sure you don't object.
On your response to me:
Why won't he step up to the plate?
Come now, David: my point, made quite clearly (I thought) was that he does. In fact, he's rarely been off the plate for the last twelve months. On TV, radio, and paper and in face-to-face encounters during his book tour, seminars and debates, he's spoken up for himself against all many, many religious apologists and devil's advocates. What exactly will satisfy you? Does he have to debate you personally? What's a reasonable thing for him to do? Suppose your book was whipping up the same sort of storm as his. How would you go about representing your views in person?
On your response to huxleyleopard:
I am a Christian and I admit I could be wrong.
That's great. I've heard you say this before and it's cheering. Now, to prove that it's not just words designed to make you sound reasonable, can you tell us: what would make you change your mind? What would need to happen to make you decide that your current beliefs are false? (For example: giving up the triple jump.)
(For my end of the bargain, I've written to you about some of the many things that could happen to change my mind. They're in the post waiting to go through at your site.)
I have certainly experienced a great deal of hatred, discrimination, intolerance and even violence because I am a Christian.
We all need to work to prevent such behaviour, certainly. But 'What if your lifeboat sinks?' isn't a good argument against escaping the Titanic. Sure, atheists can bugger things up. They need to take care not to. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be atheists.
On your response to Philip1978:
We advised her strongly that it was her Christian duty to get out and thankfully she did.
Well done sounds like you did the right thing at your church. But it's much easier to explain your good deed by reference to your (and your colleagues') sense of morality than by reference to scripture. Your actions were wholly in synchrony with what the vast majority of reasonable, sympathetic people in the UK would recommend, irrespective of their faith (or lack of it). But if you mean to support your good actions through reference to your faith, how can you differentiate it from the deeds of those who use the bible to support actions that contradict commonly-held morality? Like the examples you were given? (And like shibboleth time homophobia?)
To everyone else, regarding the response to gr8hands:
I'm afraid that this is the kind of atheist urban myth which gives you guys such a bad name. Could you list please the 'many religions' which encourage men to beat their wifes? Without empirical evidence please be silent.
I made this mistake when talking to David, too, and was equally sharply pulled up for it. I found that referring to the bible's authorisation of lethal force against disrespectful children was safer ground.
Back to you, David.
On your response to Corylus:
Of course Ellie, Corylus can not trust you to read it for himself (maybe its because he is an inherent sexist?).
I'm half-remembering earlier posts, but I think you may have made an assumption here that Corylus can refute with embarrassing ease
On your response to Henri Bergson:
Henri be careful. I predict that your reasonable point will soon be swamped by a wave of vitriol.
I wouldn't worry. Henri is never happier than when he is surfing waves of vitriol. He's very good at it.
On your response to BAEOZ:
"Belief in something that we have no knowledge of and which we can't be said to have experienced is a dishonest belief."
I agree entirely. So whats your problem?
Evidence?
On your response to the Hobbit:
I feel sorry for atheists because you are missing out on the best part of being human!
And we feel sorry for you for confusing the presents with the Father Christmas. Or do you have evidence that 'the best part of life' can only have come from a god? Otherwise, what makes you think we atheists aren't feeling just as euphoric as life as you are, but for altogether more sound reasons?
And I find it hilarious that you think I am in a position of power! What power would that be? Please let me know. Now if I was an Oxford Professor with ready access to the media, my own website and fanbase and a million seller book, that would be power. But I guess that kind of power is ok?
Dawkins, as a scientist, is accustomed to submitting his findings to an international network of critically thinking professionals who will attempt to tear it apart by reference to hard evidence, and only to approve it if they are unable to find fault. His words are to stand or fall by their accuracy. He can only strive to alert other people to what he thinks are facts, and be found wrong if those facts don't support his assertions.
Whilst your circle of influence may be many times smaller, what facts do you stand by? How can you be found wrong? And is it not the case that your pronouncements have a powerful influence on the emotional lives of those who listen to you? And are there not many, many others like you, exercising the same sort of power over an audience that, in total, equals and surpasses that which Dawkins reaches?
You weigh the types, uses and abuses of power here.
On your response to Charlou
Fascinating and such old fashioned rubbish. The tabla rasa doctrine of human nature (the blank slate) is one, that thanks to modern genetics, is now completely rubbished. We are not born blank with no character traits etc.
You respond to a little reasonable hyperbole with hyperbole of your own. So a child isn't an entirely blank slate. Surely you're not suggesting that, instead, they grow up without being heavily influenced by those around them, and their beliefs? No need for a false dichotomy, here.
"What is the best way to bring up a happy, confident, well behaved person with positive values? A positive, nurturing environment and positive reinforcement. "
Totally agree.
See?
And a good healthy religious environment is the best way to provide that.
Vague, presumptuous, question-begging and debatable.
On your response to Graham:
But RD was not voting. He was making a statement of fact. Without any empirical evidence.
Rubbish. He makes a statement of his personal opinion and draws our attention to the type of evidence he's basing it on. He says:
As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that
[My emboldening]
How about you, David? Is 'There is a god' not a statement of fact? Where in the Bible do we find a statement as open about its evidence as Richard's? Instead, we get such wonders as:
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John 20:30-31
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:24-25
I can imagine how impressed you would be to read a statement from Dawkins along these lines!:
As well as my amazing and uncorroborated claims so far in this book, there are many other rock-solid indications to support my case, but that I haven't written down. The things I have written are here to convince you that there is no god and you'd better believe it because your eternal soul [somehow] depends on it, alright?
It doesn't matter that none of this is backed up by anything outside this book: I've seen lots of evidence with my own eyes and I have written it down. You can be sure that my account is true.
There's far more evidence for my case than I can begin to write down. But believe me, it's so amazing that you can barely even imagine it.
Irrespective of your reaction to this, I can tell you for sure that I wouldn't be impressed.
Yawn. I wish you people could read. I was referring to RD's quote about gently walking.
Yes, but Graham's response makes sense within that context. Dawkins is walking gently by comparison with your local Scottish inept bomb-making doctors.
Of course. And what about the people who hold those beliefs and refuse to give them up. Will you adopt the Harris position?
Assuming you aren't now drawing arguments from The Joy of Sex, I think you've misconstrued 'the Harris position'. But I made that point to you some months ago, at your own site. It's very easy to take one reported quote from an author and respond against it. Harris, characteristically, bangs on quite laudably about discourse and the need to talk things over like calm, peaceful adults. I trust you don't find this objectionable?
You're understandably not overjoyed when your own words are misused against you. For example:
I have a few more children to indoctrinate, women to oppress and atheists to suppress. O for the good old days of the Scottish Inquisition!
:D
Your SMP is going to love the letter I'm sending with that quote in it
;)
Other Comments by _J_
285. Comment #60240 by Ole on August 1, 2007 at 11:18 am
Hi David,Thank you very much for your response! I agree with you - "..I think that her beliefs are nuts ..".
Can science study religion?
Should science study religion?
I think so. We also need to look at the "new age" stuff (where some even try put science into the mix).
Regards,
Ole
Other Comments by Ole
286. Comment #60246 by Elli on August 1, 2007 at 11:28 am
SharonMcT wrote:Elli: Loved your post (270)
Thanks, but I am actually a little embarrassed by it. I let him get away with exactly what he is on here to do: to provoke and get under people's skin in the hopes they get angry and make atheists look like zealots. I should have just ignored him, its not like he will ever change his mind. If David Robertson were to ever change his mind I wonder what he would do with the nappy?
(nappy=diaper for the americans on the site)
Other Comments by Elli
287. Comment #60248 by The Wee Flea on August 1, 2007 at 11:30 am
269. Comment #60182 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 8:57 am"OK one more DO YOU ACCEPT THAT LABELLING THE POPE AS THE ANTICHRIST FUELS HATE - AND BY SAYING SO YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO SECTARIAN HATRED?"
Billy, you remind me of Bill Clinton! It all depends what you mean by is! I think that labelling the Pope as the antichrist is a stupid and sectarian thing to do. By the way I would highly recommend the current Pope's new book on Jesus.
Now do you think it might be possible for you to respond on any thread in which I contribute by not mentioning the Pope, homosexuality or women?
Flag as: [troll] [spam] [offensive]
270. Comment #60183 by Elli on August 1, 2007 at 9:02 am
sorry to have upset you. It is clear that your definition of an Internet troll is someone who disagrees with you! There is no need to get so mad about someone disagreeing with you and calling them a liar.
I was referring to your defence of Dawkins's quote "I base this not only on conversations during my book tour and the book tours of my colleagues Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but on widespread informal surveys of the World Wide Web. Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube whose denizens are reassuringly young."
You talk about studies being backed up by informal evidence. Dawkins does not do so. He talks about conversations and informal surveys of the web. That is not empirical evidence and is utterly worthless. If that upsets you then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about it.
275. Comment #60189 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 9:23 am
"Wee Flea- yes, that clarifies it nicely. Related question- if humans are judged not on their corrupt nature, but their actions, and a hypothetical person lives their life in a very moral, decent way, as good a person as it is possible for anyone to be, but DOES not accept Jesus as his saviour, do you think he would go to Hell? Would that be right? Isn't this him being judged for his nature?"
I am not in a position to make that kind of judgement. However I do know that God will judge justly and fairly..
"Also-
"'facts are cheisl that winna ding!"
That should be chiels. It just means that facts are facts.
281. Comment #60197 by Fire1974 on August 1, 2007 at 9:47 am
"How many of these statements of belief do you find Baseless?
If you find many of them so, how do you still consider yourself a Christian?"
As regards the Nicene Creed, I accept every one of those statements of belief and believe them with all my heart and mind.
288. Comment #60216 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 10:31 am
You may be surprised to find this, I actually agree with your comments in the main on homosexuality and homophobia. Far too many people in the church seem to use religion as an excuse for their own homophobic fears. I think that is inexcusable. However, I still accept the Bible's teaching on all forms of sexuality.
I actually don't think the coming out campaign has anything to do with atheist evangelism of non-atheists. It is a political movement amongst atheists and seems clearly aimed at establishing atheist political power.
"What exactly will satisfy you? Does he have to debate you personally? What's a reasonable thing for him to do? Suppose your book was whipping up the same sort of storm as his. How would you go about representing your views in person?"
These are good questions. I certainly do not expect him to debate me. However I do think that he tends to shy away from those who would be critical of his main thesis and he certainly shies away from any form of formal debate. At some points he should take on those whom he is actually criticising in his books, i.e. Bible believing Christians. If we are so ridiculous and then he should find it like taking candy of a baby!
". Now, to prove that it's not just words designed to make you sound reasonable, can you tell us: what would make you change your mind? What would need to happen to make you decide that your current beliefs are false? "
the body of Jesus. When I die discovering there is no God. And a consistent atheist!
On your response to Philip1978:
We advised her strongly that it was her Christian duty to get out and thankfully she did.
"Well done sounds like you did the right thing at your church. But it's much easier to explain your good deed by reference to your (and your colleagues') sense of morality than by reference to scripture."
but we did refer to Scripture and that was the basis on which we encouraged her to leave her husband.
"Dawkins, as a scientist, is accustomed to submitting his findings to an international network of critically thinking professionals who will attempt to tear it apart by reference to hard evidence, and only to approve it if they are unable to find fault."
hence my, still an answer, question about when he had last submitted a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
"You respond to a little reasonable hyperbole with hyperbole of your own. So a child isn't an entirely blank slate. Surely you're not suggesting that, instead, they grow up without being heavily influenced by those around them, and their beliefs? No need for a false dichotomy, here."
if you had read my earlier post you would have seen that I believe in both nature and nurture.
"Yes, but Graham's response makes sense within that context. Dawkins is walking gently by comparison with your local Scottish inept bomb-making doctors."
O, J please get your facts right. They were not Scottish. The baggage handler who dealt with them was
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
288. Comment #60258 by scottishgeologist on August 1, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Quote from the Flea:"I think that human beings are born with a corrupt nature but I think they are judged because of what they do, not what they are born with. Does that help?"
"Judged because of what they do" - so people are saved by works rather than faith?
And presumably, you dont agree with this:
"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them."
John Calvin
You like to call yourself a Calvinist.
Explain
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
289. Comment #60261 by Amanda S. on August 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Atheism is not a choice. If someone has a certain level of intelligence, they will have doubts whether they express them or not.Other Comments by Amanda S.
290. Comment #60266 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 12:30 pm
WeeFlea:"Belief in something that we have no knowledge of and which we can't be said to have experienced is a dishonest belief."
I agree entirely. So whats your problem?
Hi WeeFlea, it would seem on the surface we agree about many things. You didn't claim that atheism is a synonym for communism this time. I'll take that as you being able to understand definitions, and evidence against faith rendering you powerless. I trust you won't play that equivocation game again.
Second as you agree with that definition of ethical belief and knowledge, please present your empirical evidence for your beliefs. I look forward to reading them and being able to recreate them and to measuring them with equipment. If you can't measure a phenomenon, you can't call say you experience it, as you would realize. It would violate that pesky 1st law of thermodynamics if something that doesn't have energy or matter (all measurable) had an effect on something that does have energy or matter. Also, I have no doubt you'll get the Nobel prize - rewritings our understanding of the natural laws to include such violations of the 1st law of thermodynamics as the soul should ensure this - so it will be a pleasure to be able to experiment with your evidence.
See! No abuse or nastiness. Now can I get a "gold star" in the manner you gave _J_?
Other Comments by BAEOZ
291. Comment #60269 by ForestMist on August 1, 2007 at 12:40 pm
HiI'm late into this discussion too (mainly because I don't have time to post anything whilst at work), but I have to admit I'm slightly confused on a couple of things. Firstly, I am totally flummoxed by the assertion by weeflea that "human beings are born with a corrupt nature". How on earth can anyone possibly say that a baby is born corrupt?? I would like to know on what factual basis weeflea bases this view, seeing as he seems keen on evidence. Perhaps he could point us in the direction of a scientific paper that outlines the basis of this viewpoint. I would hope that he isn't of the ilk who believe that babies who die unbaptised should not be buried on consecrated ground due to their inherently corrupt nature (and before I am accused of basing this on hearsay, a work colleague of mine a few years ago was not allowed by her local church to have her baby buried in the churchyard as he had not been baptised), but perhaps I am being too kind there.
Weeflea also states that, in regard to Quetzalcoatl's question as to whether people would go to heaven if they are good but not Christian, that "I am not in a position to make that kind of judgement. However I do know that God will judge justly and fairly". How can he not be in a position to make that kind of judgement but somehow be in the position to say that God will judge justly and fairly. I presume that he has records of previous judgements to back this claim up. I would be very interested in seeing the evidence for this.
Also, and I'll shut up after this, I would love to know how weeflea would define a "consistent atheist". I, and many others, may very well happen to be one, in which case he should be questioning his beliefs very seriously.
Ta lots :)
Other Comments by ForestMist
292. Comment #60271 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Well! I come back from a hard day at the coalface and sit down with a nice hot cup of gin (bugger that tea lark!) and suddenly my gordon's and tonic is spat upon the screen as I wee wee my knickers laughing. No David I am not a transvestite or one of those disgusting hell bound h-o-m-o-sexuals: I'm all girl.
What on earth possessed you to write the following?
Of course Ellie, Corylus can not trust you to read it for himself (maybe its because he is an inherent sexist?).
and then a bit later:
Yawn. I wish you people could read.You might want to read my post immediately above your first one: No. 68 or #59859
This where I wax lyrical about my magnificent chest. I don't like to bragg, but I happen to be very proud of them :)
Why assume I'm male? Maybe, because I can obviously string a sentence together and have studied a bit. You might want to think seriously about your own assumptions. Yes Elli is obviously a really pretty girl and men might want to chat to her accordingly. However (no offense Elli!) she really doesn't float my boat...
If you still don't believe me you might actually want to look up the term "Corylus" ... It contains a dirty great clue to my real name and hence my gender: I use it as an in-joke to anyone else on the board into gardening.
Warning: anyone wanting to keep the mystery of not knowing one of Corylus' little secrets: do NOT click.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corylus
'Cuse me David, I feel I cannot continue on this board any longer, all this talk of hard philosophy and science. I simply can't go on... damm oestrogen!! clogging my neural tissue as we speak...
and anyway I need to change my knickers...
Other Comments by Corylus
251. Comment #60162 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 7:28 am
Now, I've got to go away and do some serious penance: about atheist strategy, boo hoo!
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant