Print
Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal
by Megan Hawkins, Des Moines Register
Thanks to Martin Gill for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333
The community college instructor says the school sided with students offended by his explanation of Adam and Eve.
A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.
Sarah Smith, director of the school's Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman's employment status. The school's president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.
"I can assure you that the college understands our employees' free-speech rights," she said. "There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment."
Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and Omaha's Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.
Bitterman's Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was "denigrating their religion."
"I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn't given any more credibility than any other god," Bitterman said. "I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."
Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.
"I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here," he said. "From my point of view, what they're doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century."
Hector Avalos, an atheist religion professor at Iowa State University, said Bitterman's free-speech rights were violated if he was fired simply because he took an academic approach to a Bible story.
"I don't know the circumstances, but if he's teaching something about the Bible and says it is a myth, he shouldn't be fired for that because most academic scholars do believe this is a myth, the story of Adam and Eve," Avalos said.
"So it'd be no different than saying the world was not created in six days in science class.
"You don't fire professors for giving you a scientific answer."
Bitterman said Linda Wild, vice president of academic affairs at Southwest, fired him over the telephone.
Wild did not return telephone or e-mail messages Friday. Bitterman said that he can think of no other reason college officials would fire him and that Smith, the director of the campus, has previously sat in on his classes and complimented his work.
"As a taxpayer, I'd like to know if a tax-supported public institution of higher learning has given veto power over what can and cannot be said in its classrooms to a fundamentalist religious group," he said. "If it has ... then the taxpaying public of Iowa has a right to know. What's next? Whales talk French at the bottom of the sea?"
Reporter Megan Hawkins can be reached at (515) 284-8169 or mehawkins@dmreg.com
Reposted from:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333
The community college instructor says the school sided with students offended by his explanation of Adam and Eve.
A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.
Sarah Smith, director of the school's Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman's employment status. The school's president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.
"I can assure you that the college understands our employees' free-speech rights," she said. "There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment."
Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and Omaha's Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.
Bitterman's Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was "denigrating their religion."
"I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn't given any more credibility than any other god," Bitterman said. "I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."
Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.
"I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here," he said. "From my point of view, what they're doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century."
Hector Avalos, an atheist religion professor at Iowa State University, said Bitterman's free-speech rights were violated if he was fired simply because he took an academic approach to a Bible story.
"I don't know the circumstances, but if he's teaching something about the Bible and says it is a myth, he shouldn't be fired for that because most academic scholars do believe this is a myth, the story of Adam and Eve," Avalos said.
"So it'd be no different than saying the world was not created in six days in science class.
"You don't fire professors for giving you a scientific answer."
Bitterman said Linda Wild, vice president of academic affairs at Southwest, fired him over the telephone.
Wild did not return telephone or e-mail messages Friday. Bitterman said that he can think of no other reason college officials would fire him and that Smith, the director of the campus, has previously sat in on his classes and complimented his work.
"As a taxpayer, I'd like to know if a tax-supported public institution of higher learning has given veto power over what can and cannot be said in its classrooms to a fundamentalist religious group," he said. "If it has ... then the taxpaying public of Iowa has a right to know. What's next? Whales talk French at the bottom of the sea?"
Reporter Megan Hawkins can be reached at (515) 284-8169 or mehawkins@dmreg.com
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2007 | PermalinkComments 151 - 200 of 214 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers152. Comment #74511 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 7:49 am
WEE FLEAIf you seriously cannot prove that there is not an invisible elephant in your fridge then yes, there is no way I could ever offer you proof that there is a God.
CARR
I cannot prove it to a person who believes in invisible elephants the way theists believe that if you knock their head off their shoulders with a sledgehammer, a part of them will still be capable of conscious thought.
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
153. Comment #74514 by BillySands on September 29, 2007 at 8:01 am
So I didn't misquote you. However, you fabricated a quote about Dawkins in your letter in The Times, didn't you? And you don't even have the integrity to admit to it, despite being caught red handed. Why did you lie about Dawkins? In order to try to discredit him? Do you think that is an acceptable tactic for a Christian to use?
The false god of the bible says this:
Mark 10;19 "You know the commandments: Never murder. Never commit adultery. Never steal. Never give false testimony. Never cheat. Honor your father and mother."
Prov: 19:5 " A false witness will not go unpunished,and he who breathes out lies will not escape."
prov 19:9 "A false witness will not go unpunished,
and he who breathes out lies will perish."
David, why do we atheists know more about how christians are required to behave than you do?
You do it all the time - every time you twist, misquote or blatantly lie
It wouldn't be quite so bad if you were sorry about it and tried to changed. Really disappointing behaviour
Other Comments by BillySands
154. Comment #74516 by scottishgeologist on September 29, 2007 at 8:12 am
While we've got these 'tards on the ropes, heres another beauty:"Are Mega-Preachers Scandal-Prone?"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1666552,00.html
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
155. Comment #74518 by BillySands on September 29, 2007 at 8:14 am
Just as we suspected, it wasn't a mentally balanced audience as david implied by by omission
Wouldnt be a talk to the Christian Union would it by any chance, given in this events page:
http://www.dundeecu.co.uk/events.html
In the language of Batman ZAP! THWOK! KA-POW!
Russell
If god didn't actually create the earth in 6 days, if he didn't actually send the flood, or take the hebrews out of Egypt, if he didn't actually make the walls of jericho fall* or actually sweep Elijah up to heaven, then what did he do? If the claim is that all this is just a "moral story" then that really is a problem for theists. If he didn't actually do any of this, then what reason could there be to believe he i real.
I find it amusing that the more "interpretive" believers claim they are metaphors and god doesn't interact with nature. If so, then how did he "inspire" their stories - this limits god to the imagination of people
*actually, there was no wall at the time
Other Comments by BillySands
156. Comment #74523 by Philip1978 on September 29, 2007 at 9:15 am
David, I too am deeply disappointed in you, you only have yourself to blame for it. I have seen the amazing kindness with which J has treated you with and you just threw it back at him. J comes across to me as a really intelligent, creative, funny and well mannered damn good bloke and does not deserve your rudeness.
Did he come on your site causing havoc, no he bloody well didn't, have I caused any trouble yet, no I bloody well haven't!
I too have done all I can to make kind, intelligent and thought provoking posts which you dont seem in the least bit interested in talking about.
You come across as an arrogant bully whose wont is to create as much discomfort amongst those that just happen to disagree with you. You remind me of some Christian idiot I knew at Uni, this guy's dad was a minister or something and so he thought since he had the backing of the Almighty he could behave in the most despicable manner. He would constantly tell me off for blasphemy, goad me all the time to get angry because I was an unbeliever. I did all I could to be nice to him and yet he threw it back in my face all the time until I humiliated him by bringing him to task in front of his friends and he left me alone. You goad people too, you treat them with disrespect and disdain and you come on this site to stir trouble.
I am not usually like this but for you I will take an exception, get lost until you have a decent apology for all the people you so regularly insult and lie about. I know I have traded a few insults with you on this site and at least I had the balls to apologise for it when I did. I really am not surprised you have been trolled so many times, I think I will do it you dare insult anybody once more, now leave us be until you find some fucking manners!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
157. Comment #74525 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 10:00 am
wee flea:How is atheism a faith? Because you believe something based on your presuppostions which are themselves unproveable.Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
158. Comment #74529 by Quetzalcoatl on September 29, 2007 at 10:58 am
Hmm. Only a little late to the party, but already someone has started a fight. Wee Flea-
I have to admit that your attitude perplexes me. On another thread, there's a poster named Revcort, fairly Fundamentalist in his beliefs. For most of his posts he basically threw scripture at everyone, generally because he seemed to think it answered questions. He accused other Christians on the thread of "not being proper Christians", or words to that effect, because they did not think precisely as he did. I was beginning to think there was no point in anyone talking to him, as he didn't listen to what anyone had to say.
But then he apologised. He couched it in terms of his faith, but he essentially apologised for being a twit, and for any offence he had caused to other posters (he had offended at least three or four, I think). He said that he still had a lot to learn about his faith, and he had been acting as if he had all the answers.
Why am I telling this badly-structured story? Well, Wee Flea, it is because an apology is something I cannot see you making.
I respect virtually every poster on this site, some more than others, as is the way. One of those I hold in highest regard is _J_, or Goatsbane _J_, or whatever he calls himself! As well as being one of the smartest, he is also willing to spend a great deal of time debating with you in exhaustive length, both here and on your site. His arguments are articulate and detailed, not to mention polite and respectful. You have ridden roughshod over that.
Skimming the comments, I see there has been a lot of objection. One of the most easy-going and friendly posters is Philip1978, and you've even got him angry, which is quite a feat!
On the whole, everyone has made an effort to engage with you. It's a shame you don't seem willing to do the same. On almost every post you fling out phrases like "fundamentalist atheists", "atheist faith", "abusive language". Many times these points have been discussed with you. I believe I have commented on them two or three times over the last few months. Yet only a short while later, you're back with the same things.
You mentioned "tenets of atheism" and Epeeist called you on what they were. You have not answered him. Can you? Or was it another barbed phrase intended to rile us?
I do not know if you will read this rather long-winded and rambling post. But if your next sets of responses are to claim "victimisation" and "persecution" rather than to actually engage with what is being said, then I will have lost a lot of respect for you.
On the whole, the gaggle of atheists and agnostics that frequent this site are here to exchange ideas, and to talk with those believers that may stop by. If you are not interested in reasoned debate, perhaps you should go elsewhere, and if that makes me hostile, so be it.
The ball's in your court, Wee Flea.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
159. Comment #74531 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 11:02 am
Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.
Beautifully put!
Channeling epeeist: The beliefs about shared reality of atheism form a proper subset of the beliefs about shared reality of most theists, and therefore need no additional justification.
Other Comments by steve99
160. Comment #74532 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:06 am
WEE FLEALev.15:19- 24. teaches about ceremonial uncleaness - as does the pasage abut men with an emission of semen. The ceremonial laws no longer apply, the temple having been done away with, and the ceremonial law replaced by Christ.
JESUS
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
CARR
When did heaven and earth disappear?
Where does the New Testament claim that there was such a thing as the 'ceremonial' law? Which chapter and verse?
'Ceremonial' law is an invention of Christians who realise that their god was being stupid when he told people to cleanse themselves by shaking the blood of dead birds over themselves
Of course, Wee Flea claims that Leviticus 14 were divine laws given to mankind by a god, when any idiot can see that they are superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
161. Comment #74536 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 11:31 am
epeeist 73393:Yes, he still owes me an answer as to why my little hypothesis and its falsifiability isn't all there is to atheism. He claims there are other tenets, but he hasn't divulged these as yet.I wish there were a way to search this site by commenter. I'm curious to remember the day you first asked wee flea this question. You've repeated it more than once.
Moms everywhere tell us that life isn't fair. Crooks go free and no one believes the rape victim. Yet there's still a way to wring an atom of justice from our frequently amoral circumstances: by bearing witness to the testimony of our own eyes and ears. We can declare for ourselves that we see the scoundrel's game and we won't forget.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt for as long as possible. But there comes a moment when one must call a spade a spade. People of good character do not habitually obfuscate. Moral character, like general intelligence and aggression, largely doesn't vary dramatically over the course of a person's life.
A small percentage of the human population lack the capacity for genuine empathy and mutuality. Many are charming and seem like exemplary pillars of decency. But in reality they're awful beings who leave a trail of misery and demoralization among their intimates. I think of 'em as pod people, as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They only seem human.
What can be done about them? Not much. They're likely the byproduct of other useful human qualities, like the wish to be loved or recognized. There's no point in telling them they're missing a screw, for they won't have any idea what you're blathering about and will assume you're an idiot. Just mind yourself. Don't trust. If somehow they can seem bigger by making you smaller, expect to be belittled.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
162. Comment #74561 by The Wee Flea on September 29, 2007 at 2:22 pm
NB thanks for the quotations. Althoiugh I should point out that one of them is Stephen Jay Gould and another is inaccurate 'it is hoisted by your OWN petard'. But at least you have had the courtesy to read what I have written and therefore you have earned the right to comment. Actually I look forward to your comments. (As an aside can anyone tell me why this website has not done a serious review apart from calling us all fleas of the various books written in response to TGD?)The description in the banner says 'A Clear-Thinking Oasis'. I don't think telling a room full of students that atheists don't believe in God because of Russel's teapot, is very clear-thinking.
Yes I think this site should be sued under the Trade descriptions act! I simply pointed out that on this website some think it is some kind of brilliant point that because they cannot prove they don't have an elephant in their fridge, this is somehow proving that there is no God.
You also say there is arrogance on this website. I would think the real arrogance comes from someone who thinks his imaginary friend is more real than all the thousands of others.
Ironically your second sentence demonstrates the truth of the first statement.
I am glad they were amused. But the 'elephant in the fridge' argument is a good one, precisely because it is the one used by theists.
I may be missing something, Steve, but could you let me know which theists use the elephant in the fridge argument? I have never come across one yet. I certainly do not believe in an invisible God elephant. And are you really sure that you can explain morality and beauty from evolution? Is it not he case that you start off with the conclusion (there must be some evolutionary non-religious explanation) and lo and behold, you end up with the result you are looking for anyway.
I'm glad you found some other children to share your unicorn with. I hope I never find myself relying on them to make any sort of responsible judgement about anything.
J, I thought you were meant to be the 'nice, tolerant' one. Why are you so dismissive of anyone who would dare to disagree with you? Why do they have to be children? And why do you think it is so difficult to disprove the invisible elephant in your fridge? If you cannot do so then you have undermined every good thing about your previous posts.
We faithless would be happy enough to bite our lips and let you get on with praising the god of your choice no matter how implausible if there was really no harm in it.Gosh, there are just so many examples of my fundamentalistic intolerance!
Yes actually that is. The statement is meaningless. The whole point that RD does his campaigns and that most people are here is precisely because you believe that it does harm. Of course you spend a lot of time writing very lengthy posts and usually they are very interesting. But you are equally capabale of wondering off on many different tracts and whilst you are outwardly polite on the Free Church website, at no time do you challenge the abuse, irrationality and hatred on this one. For me, actions speak louder than words.
It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge.
No it isn't, it is very easy. All you have to do is try. All you have to do is expound on your disproof of the fridge-bound invisible elephant in clear and logical steps. Can you do that? Are you here for debate, or just for insults and sneers?
Ok. An elephant is a certain size. My fridge is not big enough even for a baby elephant. If an invisible elephant were in my fridge you would still be able to touch, feel, smell and hear it. Evidence of the elephant would be overwhelming. Unless of course you were the kind of person who did not accept evidence. And then we are arguing in wacko land this is the Matrix not reality. This is the world of parallel universes and green moustaches and no intelligent sane person who looked for empirical evidence would ever go there, would they?
David,
I too am deeply disappointed in you, you only have yourself to blame for it. I have seen the amazing kindness with which J has treated you with and you just threw it back at him.
Sorry to have disappointed you. I apologise for any offence and unnecessary hurt I have caused you.
Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.
Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world.
On the whole, everyone has made an effort to engage with you.
I guess you see what you want to see. With some honourable exceptions I would suggest that is not the case unless (and this would not surprise me) you have a very different view of what engagement means. I accept fully that at times I am sarcastic, mocking and not the best advert for Christianity. However I would suggest to you that this website is not the best advert for atheism. The same arguments are repeated ad nauseum. No attempt to made to engage at all with any religious people because they are de facto deluded, stupid or hypocritical.
I do not know if you will read this rather long-winded and rambling post. But if your next sets of responses are to claim "victimisation" and "persecution" rather than to actually engage with what is being said, then I will have lost a lot of respect for you.
Interesting. Every time I post on here I get the same responses, whatever the subject. Usually dozens of posts asking (accusing?) on various subjects from Hitler to the Pope. Lots of posts telling me what I believe or making ridiculous comments about tiny churches in Scotland all of which has nothing to do with the subject but all of which is intended to belittle and used as a kind of ad hominem. Foolishly I try and reply to some of them and sometimes in kind with the result that it shoots all over the place. For example this thread is supposed to be about a teacher who claims who he was thrown out of school for expressing his religious view. I asked a perfectly legitimate question and do not get one response to that question. And then you have the nerve to accuse me of not engaging with what is being said! By the way does anyone have an answer for my question about Burma?
On the whole, the gaggle of atheists and agnostics that frequent this site are here to exchange ideas, and to talk with those believers that may stop by. If you are not interested in reasoned debate, perhaps you should go elsewhere, and if that makes me hostile, so be it.
Again whilst there are exceptions to this I have not found this to be the case. And I would suggest that any neutral observer coming to this website would not find reasoned debate or the exchange of ideas other than within the very narrow confines of the atheist ideology. The reason I use the term atheist fundamentalism is because this site has all the traits of a fundamentalist website not least in the absolute certainty that you are right and that you are not fundamentalist.
The frightening aspect of this is seen in the language of both RD and Dr Benway. Religion is a virus. And people like me only ' seem human'. Such thinking will have severe consequences.
Anyway I am really tired of all this. Please feel free to post your pseudo psychology, sense of hurt, ludicrous biblical interpretations and pop philosophy to one another. You can all feel good that you belong to the One True Faith, you can mock me and other 'fundies'. If any of it begins to get home you can always claim it's not nice and, like good fundies, you can ask 'what would Jesus do'? Play all the games you want but maybe just once you could ask questions which are actually trying to elicit information rather than just accuse.
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.
I'm sure you won't object too much if I leave you to get on with things for a while. I'll check back in a week or so and see if there are any serious questions to answer. But I suspect you don't really want anyone else playing in your playground.
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
163. Comment #74566 by captain underpants on September 29, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Reverend WeeWee:
However I would suggest to you that this website is not the best advert for atheism
[...]
Anyway I am really tired of all this.
[etc]
Since you dislike this website so much, what the fuck are you doing here?
I'll check back in a week or so
Please don't
Other Comments by captain underpants
164. Comment #74570 by Fedler on September 29, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Fedlar. Why do you make this statement? It is nothing more than prejudice. You cannot possible know whether most people have examined their beliefs or not. Going by my own small experience (ie ministering in a congregation for 21 years and being editor of my church's magazine) I would say that most Christians I know spend a great deal of time examining their beliefs. But I suspect it suits you to think that we are all a bunch of deluded non-thinkers and so, because it suits you, lo and behold it becomes 'fact'.David, I find it interesting you chose the one section of my comment (the one section that I knew was a "throw away" part of the comment) to make a statement about, but totally ignore the rest where I actually posed questions to you. You could have easily ignored this section and went to the heart of the post, but no, you chose to focus in on the most meaningless part. Typical avoidance and redirection.
Anyway, here are my questions again:
Where are the church officials actively seeking to confirm their beliefs scientifically? If they 'investigate' alleged miracles, do they do anything else constructive?
Regarding your initial question:
Why are you all getting so upset because a teacher was allegedly disciplined for seeking to teach his religious views in a secular school? If it were the other way round if the teacher had been disciplined for teaching a biblical view in a secular school would you not all be shouting from the rooftops what a good thing that was?My understanding of the article was that the teacher was not disciplined for teaching his religious views. He was allegedly disciplined for saying that the 'Adam and Eve' story is not literal. The theist students/school administration found this offensive and managed to have him 'disciplined' for merely suggesting the story isn't literal.
From the article:
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.Yes, this is offensive to atheists and other non-believers and should be offensive to anyone who seeks intellectual freedom and equality.
Other Comments by Fedler
165. Comment #74571 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I may be missing something, Steve, but could you let me know which theists use the elephant in the fridge argument? I have never come across one yet.
Then you have not looked very far, or are being deliberately ignorant. All the time we see posts and comments from theists saying that 'god has interfered with evolution, but in ways that can't be detected'. Personally, I think you know this but are lying.
I certainly do not believe in an invisible God elephant.
Ok, then give us a single, clear, verifiable example of his 'footprint' in this Universe.
And are you really sure that you can explain morality and beauty from evolution?
Yes, I am really, deeply sure.
Is it not he case that you start off with the conclusion (there must be some evolutionary non-religious explanation) and lo and behold, you end up with the result you are looking for anyway.
No, this is not the case, as I can see examples of close-to-human morality and ideas of beauty in species that are evolutionarily close to us (the great apes). I am proud that I share my feelings of morality and beauty with chimps, gorillas and orang-utangs. I celebrate my ape ancestry. My morality has been selected and refined over millions of years. It does not come from a book (especially not your book, with its support of slavery and its strange obsession with homosexuality); it is deeper and more profound than that.
Our behaviour in terms of what we think of as beautiful and moral is precisely what we would expect from evolution.
Please provide even one example to the contrary.
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.
I find it hard to express how angry this comment makes me. That you would use this as some kind of attack on atheists. I have had dear atheist friends who have been recently through many miscarriages and they have deeply mourned and been traumatized by their losses. Shame on you, David. Just because we don't consider ourselves playthings of some higher being does not mean that we don't feel such losses deeply. Because we realise this is the only life have, it makes life even more precious to us, and NOT throwaway!
Shame on you, David. I hope some of your congregation read this and realise the kind of person you are.
Other Comments by steve99
166. Comment #74572 by Corylus on September 29, 2007 at 3:05 pm
WeeFlea
Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.
Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world.
Seems to be that you have been reading the posts of a certain Dianelos. That's good - I have learnt a fair bit from him too.
(Incidentally this confirms my theory that you spend a fair amount of time visiting this site and not posting). In light of that I am surprised at your assertion that:
No attempt to made to engage at all with any religious people because they are de facto deluded, stupid or hypocritical.
Oh for pity's sake David! There are over 2400 posts on the McGrath thread with us engaging with Dianelos. Pretty much every regular commentator on here has spoken to him. What's that? A fucking mirage?
Other people can reply to your statements in the middle of your post. However, your penultimate paragraph is truly reprehensible. (Even accounting for your being upset today)
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'
Is that truly what you think atheists believe? That simply because we believe in no gods, that we also conclude that people are no more than 'throwaway survival machines'?
How. Dare. You.
To quote you back at yourself.
Such thinking will have severe consequences.
P.S. My deepest sympathies to the couple that have lost their child.
Other Comments by Corylus
167. Comment #74574 by Fedler on September 29, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial.Indeed. And yet you've devoted your life to one.
Other Comments by Fedler
168. Comment #74576 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I posted a response to David, but it seems to have been lost. This was probably a good thing, as what I said was probably best not posted here.I have had very close atheist friends lose babies due to problems with pregnancies in recent times. I can't forgive David for his comments here; trying to exploit such things for his pathetic beliefs.
Sorry, but I am angry. I have nothing but the deepest feelings to anyone who has lost a child. But David's use of this here is unforgivable.
Other Comments by steve99
169. Comment #74578 by Fedler on September 29, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Corylus and steve99,I would like to second your comments. Having lost two children previously in pregnancies, I also find his use of emotional exploitation to be utterly reprehensible.
Other Comments by Fedler
170. Comment #74580 by Matt7895 on September 29, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Flea's use of the miscarriage was really quite shocking. My mother had suffered from two miscarriages, that's two potential siblings that I could have had. I could nearly have been miscarried too - my grandfather died a few months before I was born, which put considerable emotional strain on my mother. We all know someone who has suffered a miscarriage, and using it in a religious argument is in my view morally bankrupt.I dread to think what happens in Flea's services, if he truly is a church minister. I can think of no mainstream ministers who would say such a thing, so I can only guess what kind of church he runs.
Other Comments by Matt7895
171. Comment #74599 by scottishgeologist on September 29, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Wee Flea wrote:Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world
OK, lets say for a moment that there is such a thing as supernaturalism, and spiritualism. People who believe in such things make claims about them - and we know what they are:
1)Prophecy: "The Lord has given me a Word - such and such is going to happen"
2) Prayer: "Lets *just* pray about this - and God wil do something about it
3) Charismatic "gifts" .... no , lets not bother...
4) The supposed inspired inerrancy of the Bible
Taking these in turn
1) Prophecy doesnt work. Full stop - no more than one would expect statistically. People who "get a word from the Lord" have voices in their heads and are mentally ill.
2) Prayer: again a proven failure - no more than stats would predict. It doesnt work. End of story. Well not as the Bible claims it does
3) No, give this one a body swerve.... Lunacy on a heroic scale thats all it is. Even conservative theists think they are nuts
4) Theists dont even know what the Bible is. The NIV is full of footnotes saying "not in the earliest reliable manuscripts" and stuff like this. Whether its the Johannine Comma or the end of Marks Gospel, or many other small footnotes. Anyway, its full of contradictions and illogical nonsense. And besides, so called bible believers dont believe it - are women silent in your church?
Anyway, David, for what its worth, you know I tried, like really hard, to give the supernatural worldview a go. I kidded myself that it worked. I really wanted to believe. But ultimately it failed. The final straw (and this was after a long period of creeping doubts) was the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004. Not that "god sent destruction". No , the pathetic response of the churches (and that includes yours which claims that tectonic instability happened because of "sin") No church leader had ANY sort of good explanation. None whatsoever. They didnt because they couldnt. Their supernatural / spiritual paradgim was fouind lacking. Big time.
Why did so few animals die? Why so many children? Why did the tsunami happen in the first place? What casues earthquakes? The answer to it all is found in NATURALISM and SCIENCE not SUPERSTITION and IGNORANCE.
A young English girl who had learned about tsunamis just before going on holiday told her parents to clear the beach as she saw what was happening. Everyone there survived. Why? Education. Science, Reason.
Now think about it, they could have got down on their knees on the sand and "prayed"....
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
172. Comment #74616 by Russell Blackford on September 29, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I'm a philosophical naturalist, but philosophical naturalism is not a starting point. It's an inference from the whole history of rational inquiry into the nature of the universe. It may be a premise for some arguments, but I wouldn't use it as a fundamental premise to argue against the existence of God, which would be question-begging.If anyone can give me good evidence for the activities of ghosts, ancestor spirits, fairies, anthropomorphic gods, etc., I'll revise my opinion that they don't exist. So far, the evidence is all running the other way (Earth is billions of years old, no sign of Noah's flood, though plenty of signs of smaller floods, no powerful anthropomorphic beings discovered on Mt Olympus, no small Julia Roberts lookalikes spied flying around my garden, etc., etc.). But if that changes, I'll be prepared to accept that such things might or (depending on the strength of the evidence) do exist. Meanwhile, I draw the conclusion that beings like those are not features of the universe.
If someone gives me a good argument for the elephant-in-the-fridge god, or shows me how its existence could be tested in some way, I'll take it seriously for the purpose of how I live my life. However, if they do that against the background that I've already concluded that in-universe gods and spirits don't exist, then they'll need to explain why it helps to posit an out-of-universe, timeless, eternally non-interactive thing of a kind that doesn't exist in-universe. In particular, how is it more than an ad hoc move to keep open the possibility that their religion has a grain of metaphorical truth?
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
173. Comment #74627 by _J_ on September 29, 2007 at 6:11 pm
DavidGod knows if you'll ever read this, since you've done another Keyser Soze. Nevertheless:
I initially wrote quite a few things in response to your post.
I think they were mainly for my own benefit, and they were very cathartic. But I think posting them would be counterproductive.
I don't like this. I was happy largely agreeing to disagree, so long as we were square on a few points. I even thought maybe we were at the point where we could basically shake hands and concern ourselves with worrying about the world's Ken Hams and jihadis.
But then I find you hacking at what I had believed to be our common ground, still associating atheism with cold amorality, still refusing to engage with the arguments and instead attacking the tone of voice, still making grandiose claims to evidence that somehow never materialises. And I despair, because the agreement I thought we had turns out to have been an illusion, and the David I thought I was getting on reasonably well with just a mask, or a mirage of my own invention.
Argumentatively I think I have now given up. Perhaps you can be reasoned with, but I don't have what it takes to do it. I don't know whether the practice in self-restraint outweighs the cost to my blood pressure in persisting in discussions that make me want to put my forehead through my monitor.
Somehow I feel that all of our discussions involve my having to bend over backwards to the point of breaking my spine in order to understand your arguments, whilst you are allowed to distort and re-interpret mine at leisure. Carrying on, I think, is probably just indulging in 'the Concorde fallacy' (yes, again, I owe Dawkins for that term) or vainly flattering my own powers of persuasion.
Specifically on the elephant argument: I'm not going there. I have covered exactly this ground, using different examples, on your website. Nothing that you have raised here in refutation of the argument (and you have raised very, very little, above repetitions of how ridiculous you find your own straw-man misconception of it) rebuts the points I made to you there. (I'm sorry you find me so digressive. In part, it's true: I am. In part, though, I am deliberately going miles out of my way to constrain the sidestepping you habitually engage in to avoid the arguments that are put to you.) If you don't find my arguments there convincing, then either you can do a decent job of telling me why, or this line of conversation is at an end. Waving a flag might convince your die-hards that you've scored a point, but I couldn't give a damn. The approval of an audience that doesn't understand what it's being shown isn't worth the breath it is expressed with.
And, just to deal with this:
J, I thought you were meant to be the 'nice, tolerant' one.
I have no idea what I'm 'supposed' to be. I am what I am: bang out of patience.
Why are you so dismissive of anyone who would dare to disagree with you? Why do they have to be children?
To borrow an Americanism: Way to engage with an argument, David. Why teacher and child? It was the first scenario that made a reasonably accurate metaphor that I could think of. If it makes you happier, feel free to re-imagine the scene, from the following starting point:
Nobel laureate: I have a baby unicorn.
Mad, stinking, raving murderer and rapist: Really? Gosh, lucky you. Show me the unicorn.
Nobel laureate: I have a baby unicorn.
...
Etc, ad nauseum. The only change I can see is what's likely to happen to the Nobel laureate at the end of it.
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died.
That's terrible. I hope your better qualities (call them god, if you wish) are with you in offering those people support at this time. And that you can help them engage their own. I personally lack the experience to imagine how awful this must be. I hope you can do better than I would.
Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.
The cheap shot is entirely forgiveable in the circumstances. I assume that you will have the basic human decency to cringe when you look back on it in future, but I hope that you won't be too hard on yourself, given how you must be feeling at the time of writing. Perhaps, in light of these circumstances, I should really not be replying to your post at all, as it's unlikely to be representative of you at your best.
But I'm weak, and eager to write while this is fresh in my mind. If you subsequently feel that I was attacking a 'you' that isn't the normal you, please feel free to avail yourself of the excuse that the situation you have described affords you.
On this cheap shot: understandable though it is, I would still hope that the reams of text that I and others have written to you in spite of my digressions and failure to say exactly what you would like me to say all of the time, and of sporadic outbursts of vitriol and frustration would be enough to give the lie to the idea that atheists see humans as cheap, disposable and worth nothing more than the chemicals they are made of. I've addressed it specifically, more than once, and I'm sure it's been plentifully evident in other people's posts. If you still can't see that, David, then really, I don't know what to say. It's not just a problem of religion, it's literally a problem of basic comprehension. I don't know. If you are determined to cling to that attitude (and I hope this is an aberration of the moment) then there's really nothing I can say to you.
Oh, before I bugger off, just one thing, since it's a bit more in my field. The quote is 'Hoist with his own petard'. Hamlet, Act III, Sc.iv., line 209. Hoist. Not 'hoisted'. Have you no sense of rhythm?
I suggest reading Hamlet instead of the bible once in a while. The most brilliant academic I've ever personally met reckoned it 'the best play ever written in time and space'. In terms of sheer density, insight and profundity, it'll knock anything else you can lay your hands on into a cocked hat. Purely in terms of maturely addressing the tensions of trying to map religion into real life, it's light years ahead of the bible. In terms of literature, there's no comparison. The bible might have its strengths; but, as they say, it sure ain't Shakespeare. And it might improve your standards of quotation.
By the way: did you know that the works of Shakespeare were actually written by god? I'm not joking. This is a fact. Shakespeare's writings surpass the bible in beauty, coherency, knowledge and insight into the human condition. They were written in a fraction of the time that the bible took, apparently all by one man. The idea that any single modest Jacobethan could have knocked them together is clearly laughable.
No, it's quite clear to me that the real god wrote the works of Shakespeare, either because he felt that his earlier efforts in the bible needed updating, or because he was sick to death of us treating that jury-rigged scrapbook as divine. I have it from a proper, PhD-holding biblical scholar that the bible nowhere claims unambiguously to be, in its totality, the inerrant word of god. Weigh 'em up: which seems more likely to be god's work? In terms of every criterion I can think of, speaking with my gut as well as my brain, it's Shakespeare. Shakespeare makes the bible look like cave scratchings from the Neanderthals' equivalent of a padded cell.
I'm sure you disagree. And I'm similarly sure that you have no good argument to show that your disagreement is more valid than my opinion.
Shakespeare was god. Accept it. (And he has a special hell for people who misquote him.)
Anyway.
Take care of yourself, David, and your parishioners. And let me know if you ever visit Borders in Stockport. I'll buy you a coffee, and probably won't throw it at you.
Other Comments by _J_
174. Comment #74629 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 6:21 pm
You also believe that natural forces are at work in the world. So we have that in common. You just add a bit of God to the mix.Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world.
So you didn't answer my question actually.
Might makes right is not moral. Obedience is not moral. Quite the opposite. Negotiating with other as equals, for mutual benefit, is moral.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
175. Comment #74635 by Veronique on September 29, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Tectonic instability happened because of 'sin'! Does the Flea's church really propound this seriously???????????Good Lord:-).
174. Comment #74627 by _J_
What a beautiful post smiles and shuffles about
I am so glad you picked up the Hamlet quote. It's been irritating me as I read these posts.
And I have to agree that Shakespeare is god. Please don't get upset Quetz, I will still drink tea:-).
Thanks again _J_.
V
Other Comments by Veronique
176. Comment #74656 by Dr Benway on September 29, 2007 at 9:04 pm
wee flea:The frightening aspect of this is seen in the language of both RD and Dr Benway. Religion is a virus. And people like me only ' seem human'. Such thinking will have severe consequences.It's your sociopathy, not your religion, that limits your humanity.
Gosh, that poor dead baby. Must have been rough on you.
It's the pity play that gives you away. All sociopaths play the pity card when they're nervous. It's just too easy, isn't it. The suckers are so predictable.
J:
I hope you can do better than I would.You'd do a thousand times better. Humanity is what counts, and you have it.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
177. Comment #74670 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:47 pm
WEE FLEAI have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died.
CARR
Gosh, nothing fails like prayer.
I bet the child's Heavenly Father did nothing while the earthly parents were frantically doing everything they could.
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
178. Comment #74671 by stevencarrwork on September 29, 2007 at 11:49 pm
WEE FLEAI simply pointed out that on this website some think it is some kind of brilliant point that because they cannot prove they don't have an elephant in their fridge, this is somehow proving that there is no God.
CARR
More lies by the liar for Jesus.
Who argues that a proof that there is no God is that they don't have an elephant in their fridge?
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
179. Comment #74677 by scottishgeologist on September 30, 2007 at 12:33 am
V said: Tectonic instability happened because of 'sin'! Does the Flea's church really propound this seriously???????????
If you can stand it , Veronique, go here:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm
and you'll see what I mean. In particular:
"The Bible's worldview and answer is both far more coherent and far more practical than the 'that is just the way it is' view of the Darwinianists, or the 'nice God, nice world' theology of much of theological liberalism. The world has been corrupted by sin. There is pollution of every kind. Human beings are polluted. "
Actually, to be fair, I have heard other preachers come out with this stuff. You know: God creates a nice perfect place, where no crap of any type happens, this talking snake tells the woman to eat the fruit, she gives it to her husband and as a consequence, earthquakes happen, mudslides slide, volcanoes erupt, animals become carniverous, oh yes, and thistles and thorns start to grow. And childbirth will hurt. And men will rule over women. (Genesis 3 for all the fun)
They even use the New Testament (Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.) to back this up.
Bottom line: this is the best that the theists can come up with. They have no other explanation. They've just GOT to have their "spiritual" "superpernatural" view of things.
This brings us right back to the gist of the original article.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
180. Comment #74688 by Veronique on September 30, 2007 at 1:45 am
Apart from the Flea's inability to distinguish the usage of personal pronoun from a spurious use of the inclusive, I find that article revolting. Thanks for warning me SG and I have to say thanks for posting the link. You are correct, I cannot stand it.The Flea:
Although I would also say that it is because of such events that I believe in God.
He believes in god because there are natural disasters? OMG I knew he wasn't empathetic, but this takes the cake. He is now, officially a fruit-cake and very nasty to boot. It's a sort of self-satisfaction with natural disasters to prove his warped point of view. How much more horrible can he get. An asylum could evaluate him and give him an MMPI test. He would sit at the bottom end of the scaling structure.
There is no answer only despair, death and destruction.. Wrong!! However it may appear, there is hope, food and shelter (said she, screwing her eyes up whenever cheetahs run down their food source - such beautiful, soft, limpid eyes; such beautiful features-you know what I mean).
I know that I am quote mining, but none of it gets better, so quote mining doesn't even seem an issue when looking at what he wrote.
I loathe what this precious, pernicious, petulant little prick preaches (thanks Marcus Brigstocke).
Right. That's me with the Flea. No quarter will ever be given, not even in the interests of fair play; what an arrogant little shit. I now give myself carte blanche to attack him with ad hominem vitriol. How can you play the ball when the man is such a shit?
Thanks SG. My ire is up but my sense is intact:-).
V
Other Comments by Veronique
181. Comment #74696 by stevencarrwork on September 30, 2007 at 2:24 am
WEE FLEAHuman beings are polluted.
WEE FLEA
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died.
CARR
SO you have to tell someone that a 'polluted' thing has just died?
You'll get over it.
After all that baby was polluted.
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
182. Comment #74704 by Northern Bright on September 30, 2007 at 3:19 am
Well, well, well, I go away for a few days, and it turns into the equivalent of a Kit-Kat advert round here! Do you remember the one I mean? The one where the photographer spends hours and hours waiting to glimpse a giant panda, only for 2 of them to emerge and perform an elaborate ice-dancing routine the moment he turns his back to take a break? :-)There's very little to be added to answers you've all given to Wee Flea already. You've said it all, and beautifully too - especially _J_, who has more right than most of us to feel personally aggrieved by Wee Flea's abusive behaviour.
However, it does strike me that there are several Christians who are active on RD. net - Dianelos, of course, but also Biz, Revcort, Brother John, Fides et Ratio, Paul Emecz, Lane and others. Have you seen a single one of them EVER write approvingly or in support of Wee Flea's posts? No? No, nor have I. Why might that be, I wonder?
Could it be because, like us, they cringe at the majority of what he writes and are appalled at the sheer twisted nastiness that is evident in it? And because, however much they may share his RELIGION, they don't wish to be associated with HIM? Who could blame them, if so?
(By the way, have you ever seen Wee Flea engage with one of THEM, either? - either in support or to challenge them?)
Is there sometimes aggression, abuse, stupidity and nastiness from atheists on this website? Yes. What else would you expect on an open forum such as this, with thousands and thousands of contributions from hundreds of contributors? But anyone taking an honest look through it in search of warmth, compassion, humanity, wit, intelligence, thoughtfulness, a questioning spirit, a willingness to admit doubt and a willingness to engage with "the other side" would find those in abundance too - though not in Wee Flea's posts, that's for sure.
OK, Wee Flea, you've already demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that you can stoop to the depths of the worst of the behaviour you can find on this site. If you can equally demonstrate an ability to raise yourself to the best of it, it may be worth your checking back in at a later date. Otherwise, please don't bother. Since the only point you seem to want to make is that you feel nothing but contempt for atheists, and since you've already made that abundantly clear, it really would be a waste of your time and ours.
(As an aside can anyone tell me why this website has not done a serious review apart from calling us all fleas of the various books written in response to TGD?)
I happen to know that reviews of a number of these books are underway right now. No doubt Wee Flea will read them with his customary open-mindedness, sense of fairness, and interest in genuine discussion.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
183. Comment #74710 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 4:37 am
How disgusting was that cheap shot by flea concerning the baby? What kind of person would use such a tragedy to make a cheap shot and lie about atheists?Religion cheapens life, not atheism. I remember going round the armoury section of the Kelvingrove museum recently, and there is a quote from a crusader's creed, which says something like "give no explanation to the infidel other than 6 inches of steel in his bowels"
J I think you have been light on him, but you are a better example of fairness and respect than he could possibly be, so dont let him make you think you are being unduly hostile. You have handled the wee shit very well.
Anyone else laugh at his proof of the invisible elephant. In case he is reading, most elephants are not invisible, so why do you attribute other normal elephant attributes to it?
I feel a random (and justified) expression of contempt for this wilfull liar comming on - Dicksplat!
btw anyone else remember this attempt to use a human tragedy to try and have a go at the object of his obsession?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1326,God-Hates-the-World,Westboro-Baptist-Church#51894
Other Comments by BillySands
184. Comment #74711 by Quetzalcoatl on September 30, 2007 at 4:50 am
Billy-I remember that thread well. Skimming it just now, I saw numerous examples of commenters doing what Wee Flea complains that we do not- engaging and discussing with him. I was probably wrong, though. Must have been my imagination.
Wee Flea-
I said:
I do not know if you will read this rather long-winded and rambling post. But if your next sets of responses are to claim "victimisation" and "persecution" rather than to actually engage with what is being said, then I will have lost a lot of respect for you.
You said:
Anyway I am really tired of all this. Please feel free to post your pseudo psychology, sense of hurt, ludicrous biblical interpretations and pop philosophy to one another. You can all feel good that you belong to the One True Faith, you can mock me and other 'fundies'. If any of it begins to get home you can always claim it's not nice and, like good fundies, you can ask 'what would Jesus do'? Play all the games you want but maybe just once you could ask questions which are actually trying to elicit information rather than just accuse.
Enough said?
Oh, except for:
I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.
CHEAP SHOT. EXTREMELY CHEAP SHOT. I am sure the parents would be delighted you are using their tragedy to score points in a debate. Bravo.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
185. Comment #74717 by Veronique on September 30, 2007 at 5:54 am
David Robertson is an extremely loathsome character. Or is that a caricature? I no longer care about being a sideline observer to his ravings. I have decided that he is one very nasty person.I know that I have been very nasty back to him on a couple of these threads. I take no comfort from this. The Flea is one horribilis, a disgusting piece of humanity.
Billy I hope you can go to his church and show him up to be the revolting person that he actually is.
Very upset
V
Other Comments by Veronique
186. Comment #74718 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 5:56 am
From the link by SGBut what about Darwin's argument? He makes one big mistake he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case.
Now if a science teacher said that he should be fired. Does wee fannypad really think there were no eathquakes, volcanoes or meteor impacts before man. I wonder what he makes of examples close to home, like the moine thrust, arthurs' seat, ardnamurchan, graded sediments near aberfoyle. What about further afield like chixulub the deccan traps, the african rift valley or the Andean orogeny?
And this guy was talking to some peh* eating fundies on sciene on friday.
Like quetz says, he lies about people not debating. I remember trying to engage him several times on the issue of paleopathology and just got insulted for my trouble.
Mind you, when pressed on the issue of earthquakes and sin, he avoids facts by changing from his certainty above to I dont know? I dont think he knows if he knows or not - or perhaps he is realising (slowly) how stupid his views are http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page6#12171
*peh (pie) is the staple diet of dundonians- along with marmalade.
Other Comments by BillySands
187. Comment #74721 by scottishgeologist on September 30, 2007 at 6:03 am
Billy"Peh eating fundies" !!!!!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!
"Aye, an ah'll hae an ingin ane an a'!"
Class.
SG
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
188. Comment #74723 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 6:06 am
I'm with Pewkatchoo, I believe in calling a spade a spade and a liar a liar. Robertson has long lost my respect with his disgraceful tactics and general idiocy. I have no problem letting him know that. Despite his protestations, he does have power. He gets to write some paranoid anti atheist propaganda for the scottish parliament's news letter. I may have a copy somewhere if someone wants a copy, PM me (if I can find it I'll email it).Anyone notice that he hasn't apologised about misquoting Dawkins in the times. We demand a retraction as well to show that he means it (if he ever gives one)
V
I do plan a trip to Dundee soon to see an atheist friend who is built like Arnold Schwarchenegger, so you never know :-)
EDIT: from the article: "One of the reasons Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" has proved to be so popular, is that it is a polemicthat appeals to the prejudices and attitudes of much of modern society, one of which is that any public expression of religion is a threat to the body politic."
Other Comments by BillySands
189. Comment #74727 by Northern Bright on September 30, 2007 at 6:24 am
I am continuing to read Wee Flea's book, The Dawkins Letters, and continuing to find page after page where he has shamelessly twisted and distorted what's in TGD, or has quite simply lied. As in this example:The only argument I have heard atheists use is that, well, really, Stalin was not an atheist because he behaved unreasonably and unreasonable people cannot be atheists! It's the ultimate in circular arguments and there is no point in trying to break into the circle.
Maybe here would be a good place to quote what it REALLY says in TGD:
Stalin was probably an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't; but even if both were atheists, the bottom line of the Stalin/Hitler debating point is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism.
To be fair, maybe Wee Flea doesn't realise that RD is an atheist, and this is what legitimises his claim?
PS. And there was me thinking that "God exists because the bible says so, and the bible must be true because it's the word of God" was the ultimate in circular arguments. The difference is, people really do use this one.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
190. Comment #74729 by Northern Bright on September 30, 2007 at 7:03 am
Here's another beauty for you, from his final chapter:When you see Christians behaving in a way which would shame Satanists, when you see preachers being pompous, hypocritical [...], then it is enough to put you off Christianity for life.
Yup. Can't argue with that. "Hoisted by his own petard" again ;-)
Other Comments by Northern Bright
191. Comment #74730 by pewkatchoo on September 30, 2007 at 7:04 am
Nurse, Flea is trying to crawl through the bars on the window now. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
192. Comment #74733 by pewkatchoo on September 30, 2007 at 7:20 am
Does anyone here really imagine for two bloody seconds that the Flea's 'just come back from the hospital scenario' has a grain of fact in it? I quite imagine that this is just one of his typical devices to try and pour scorn on us benighted atheists. He is not averse to simply making it up to score an imaginary point. In short, he is an arse if it is true or not. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
193. Comment #74736 by Corylus on September 30, 2007 at 7:38 am
Pewkatchoo Does anyone here really imagine for two bloody seconds that the Flea's 'just come back from the hospital scenario' has a grain of fact in it?
I been considering that possibility too. However, the mention of the age of the parent seemed to be a detail that didn't need making up: so I expect they exist.
Also, he is aware that some of the members of his Church's message board look here too.
If has made this up as debating point (to distract people from the fact that he was spectacularly losing an argument and without the guts to admit it).
Then he is not only a despicable individual, he has made a huge tactical error as well.
Other Comments by Corylus
194. Comment #74738 by Hip_Priest on September 30, 2007 at 7:45 am
I don't want to resurrect ancient history but in the post BillySands linked to, one thing WeeFlea admits surprised me:http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page6#12171
In terms of proof that I get my own personal morals from the Bible let me give you one example. I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right. I cannot see any substantial reason for believing that other than the Bible.
Word of advice David - Under no circumstance tell your wife this. Ever.
Other Comments by Hip_Priest
195. Comment #74742 by _J_ on September 30, 2007 at 8:01 am
Northern Bright, 191That's incredible.
A post from a Christian-turned-sceptic called Tommy recently appeared on the Free Church website. Note this bit:
[...] in my search for Christian literature to help address my questions, I read David Robertson's little book of letters. In fact, perhaps counter-intuitively I read it first and am only now just beginning to read Dawkins' book which David critiques.
[...] I got hold of [The Dawkins Letters] because I read some reviews (I think on Amazon) which gave the impression that this response to Dawkins really was the best of the bunch. [...] So I set about reading The Dawkins Letters with an expectancy that this would somehow deal with the key points I had heard Dawkins was making. Instead I was disappointed to find the usual evangelical spin on most of these, and in some chapters where Robertson seemed almost to dodge the issues at hand.
What's that? The Dawkins Letters not only unpersuasive, but sufficiently unsuccessful to actually do TGD's work for it? Fancy that.
Perhaps our dog should praise his fleas after all.
Other Comments by _J_
196. Comment #74778 by Dr Benway on September 30, 2007 at 12:04 pm
wee flea:In terms of proof that I get my own personal morals from the Bible let me give you one example. I believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right. I cannot see any substantial reason for believing that other than the Bible.Sociopaths actually do require firm, external authorities enforcing social norms. They lack the immediate, intuitive, fellow-feeling that discourages most of us from harming others.
Would life be more fun if we didn't have a conscience pestering us with self-doubt? Actually no. When you lose your sensitivity to guilt or remorse, you lose your capacity for contentment. There is a mild yet pervasive, simple happiness associated with sharing ordinary life with other people. We hardly notice it most of the time. But if we become alienated from our tribe, we'll painfully feel the lack.
You can't win a battle with a sociopath. By the time they reach adulthood, they know more about winning than we mere hobbits will learn in a lifetime. They can take any reaction, positive or negative, as proof of their own importance. They can win by being ignored, by being humiliated, and even by losing.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
197. Comment #74785 by stevencarrwork on September 30, 2007 at 12:27 pm
WEE FLEAI believe it is wrong for me to sleep around with other women than my wife because the Bible indicates to me that monogamy is morally right.
CARR
There was a time when the Bible said polygamy was morally right.
I guess if you don't like Biblical morality, just wait and it will change.
I'm sure Wee Flea does lots of things atheists would say were deeply immoral, because atheists don't realise that the Bible say that those things are actually moral.
I'm sure that is true, unless Wee Flea wants to claim that Biblical morality and atheistic morality are the same.
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
198. Comment #74805 by Coel on September 30, 2007 at 3:09 pm
So Wee Flea FINALLY attempts his disproof of the the invisible elephant. And it is every bit as hopeless as we expected!Ok. An elephant is a certain size. My fridge is not big enough even for a baby elephant.Err, well normal elephants are a certain size, certainly. But invisible elephants? How do you know what size they are? Have you, David, ever seen one? Thought not. So how do you know what size it is? Next!
If an invisible elephant were in my fridge you would still be able to touch, feel, smell and hear it.How the hell do you know that? If an elephant lacks visibility, it might also lack touchability, feelability, smellability and audibility, might it not? (I mean, look, your god lacks all of those things, doesn't it?) You seem to be making a hell of a lot of assumptions about the properties of this invisible elephant. On what basis?
I mean, suppose I said, "A benevolent God would not let a child die of cancer"; you'd just invent a whole lot of excuses about why such a being might indeed let a child die of cancer. So, why can't we just invent a whole lot of excuses to protect the existence of our invisible, just like you religious folk do for your god?
Evidence of the elephant would be overwhelming.Some of us feel that that should also be the case if any god did exist! ;-) But then come the whole host of excuses and get-out clauses, just as above. And at the end of them, the "observable signs" of God just happen to be identical to the signs if no god existed. Just like, at the end of this, the "observable signs" of the invisible elephant are going to end up a null set.
Unless of course you were the kind of person who did not accept evidence.Well, you still haven't presented any evidence against this invisible elephant. All you've done is make a whole lot of unwarrented assumptions about the properties of this elephant.
I mean, David, as I explained to you earlier (and don't you ever read posts that are intended to be educative and helpful?), it is dead easy to produce a disproof if you're allowed to tag on extra properties. For example, I can easily disproove a benevolent-God-who-will-not-let-a-child-die-of-cancer.
Well David, you're not going to manage to disprove this elephant; and in the same way there is no disproof of your god; you believers have carefully arranged that with get-out clauses and excuses. But in the end your god is just as real as this invisible elephant! You've way underestimated the power of this invisible elephant, flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, argument, haven't you David?
By the way, can I take your silence as a "No, I still haven't found the integrity to admit that I fabricated that Dawkins quote, and that I deliberately lied about Dawkins to a million readers of the The Times"?
Other Comments by Coel
199. Comment #74809 by BillySands on September 30, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Interesting observations Dr Benway. I noticed some interesting language earlier.I accept fully that at times I am sarcastic, mocking and not the best advert for Christianity..
Note there is no actual apology, and there is a denial of personal responsibility.
all of which has nothing to do with the subject but all of which is intended to belittle and used as a kind of ad hominem. Foolishly I try and reply to some of them and sometimes in kind with the result that it shoots all over the place.
This is a typical one - if you challenge my point of view, you are apparently throwing accusations at him. There is also an acknowledgement of hs faults here, but no apology and he is trying to shift the blame on to others "they made me do it". It doesn't even enter his head that he could be wrong
Other Comments by BillySands
200. Comment #74812 by Corylus on September 30, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Billy As you are online at the moment - I think you might be way better at helping this guy than me...
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1690,There-Go-The-Dinosaurs,Jack-T-Chick#74804
Other Comments by Corylus
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
151. Comment #74510 by Coel on September 29, 2007 at 7:46 am
Wee flea writes: Err, no, we can't. So could you explain it to us?No it isn't, it is very easy. All you have to do is try. All you have to do is expound on your disproof of the fridge-bound invisible elephant in clear and logical steps. Can you do that? Are you here for debate, or just for insults and sneers?
You are right, you did not say or use that argument. But then I never said you did! If you actually read my comment 63 I say only "I expect wee free might try that one"; I was merely speculating that you might try that argument.
So I didn't misquote you. However, you fabricated a quote about Dawkins in your letter in The Times, didn't you? And you don't even have the integrity to admit to it, despite being caught red handed. Why did you lie about Dawkins? In order to try to discredit him? Do you think that is an acceptable tactic for a Christian to use?
Other Comments by Coel