1. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #231281 by ForestMist on August 16, 2008 at 5:05 am

isthatclear

You asked if mutation or evolution of any animal has been seen. I therefore mentioned MRSA and asked you to explain it.I would like to know why MRSA has nothing to do with evolution when SA used to be killed by Methycillin and now isn't. Therefore please explain to me how SA is now resistant to Methycillin when it didn't used to be.

2. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #230747 by ForestMist on August 15, 2008 at 5:02 am

isthatclear

What about you? Did you see any mutation, evolution of any animal? I say there is a design and this is my proof? Where is your proof?

Would you mind explaining MRSA to me then?

3. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222981 by ForestMist on August 1, 2008 at 7:20 am

Old Sarum, if someone doesn't believe that Jesus is the real and true son of God then I would say without any hesitation that that person is not a Christian. If you don't believe in the core tenents of a religion then you are not religious. You may be spiritual or have a mystical view of the universe but you would not be religious. If you are going to call people who think the Bible isn't real but derive joy from reading it as religious, then I must belong to the religion of Mary Stewart, Susan Cooper, Lewis Carroll, Terry Pratchett and JRR Tolkien.

4. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222953 by ForestMist on August 1, 2008 at 6:46 am

Steve,

I always get a bit lost with Buddhism, as you have Tibetan Buddhism at one end with all the various supernatural beings they believe in (sort of mini celestial super-beings maybe?) and then the other end you have Zen Buddhism which doesn't appear to believe in them (from what I can gather, which is mainly based on what my other half has told me, who has read quite a few Zen Buddhist books). I have read the Tibetan Book of the Dead and I seem to remember mention of various supernatural beings in that.

5. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222943 by ForestMist on August 1, 2008 at 6:24 am

Old Sarum,

How can you have a religion that doesn't require believing in some kind of celestial super-being? I can't see how you can define a religion in any kind of way that doesn't involve reference to such celestial super-being.
I am not habititually anti-religious, I'm just anti-daft people who think that their imaginary celestial super-being gives them the right to decree the way I should live my life. If they want to believe that my cat is the ruler of the universe that's their business, but if they want to say that my cat has decreed that all humans should carry a blue comb with them all the time as it is holy to Her and that humans who don't are evil and should be put to death / told they are going to be immersed in water up to their necks for the rest of eternity and that all children should be taught that the universe is only 3000 years old then that is my business and I am going to have a problem with them.

6. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222933 by ForestMist on August 1, 2008 at 6:03 am

Old Sarum,

You've kind of missed my point. Religion is about the universe being the product of some kind of supernatural being (god, cow, tea-loving ancient South American snake with wings, David Tennant, whatever). If you're talking about having awe and wonder at the universe it doesn't require any of them, if you are wanting to have a sense of community it doesn't require any of them. I may very well have the same sense of wonder that a religious person has but I don't need to ascribe it to some celestial cow.
You can have community groups that don't involve religion, you can have support groups that don't involve worshipping David Tennant (no matter how tempting it might be! :))
I just don't understand how worshipping any kind of celestial wonder-being improves your interaction with the universe, it is completely unnecessary and a waste of time. Why not join a local nature group instead if you want to do good in your community and have a sense of community? You'd do more good clearing local scrubland of rubbish than singing hymns to David Tennant

7. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222908 by ForestMist on August 1, 2008 at 5:18 am

Old Sarum,

I'm really confused here - I really don't understand why you seem to think that we need religion to have a meaningful interraction with the world around us. I don't believe in any god or supernatural being, but that doesn't prevent me from having a profound sense of wonder and awe when I go walking in the countryside, or from caring about other living things or having the "warm fuzzy glow" that you get from realising that you are part of the amazing universe that we live in. You can have a sense of community without religion, you can help people without religion, you can care about the state of the planet without religion, you can feel part of the universe without religion. So why on earth would we need to either be part of the strange ones that already exist or invent some whole new ones?

8. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207669 by ForestMist on July 10, 2008 at 5:10 am

Listen everyone, I think you might as well give it up and admit that evolution is just plain wrong. I had an interesting discussion with a couple of Mormons on my way home the other day and they told me that there is a very smart man in London who has proved without any shadow of a doubt that evolution is false. He apparently hasn't published his findings in any peer-reviewed scientific papers or a book or anything like that but that's because he has no interest in doing anything like that because he doesn't like the lime-light. They then explained to me how the orange proves that evolution can't have happened as does the fact that there are still monkeys in the world that haven't become human.
With explanations like that, how can anyone still think that evolution can be true?.......

:) :) :)

9. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202893 by ForestMist on July 2, 2008 at 5:45 am

interested observer - for the record, Styrer isn't my mate. I think this is the first time that I've had any kind of interaction with him on a thread. The point I was trying to make is that if you don't like the way he says things either a: don't read his posts, or b: don't be blatantly offensive to him when having a go at him for being offensive. So I stand by the pot and kettle analogy that I made in the first place. If you wanted to make a point that gratuitous swearing can be counter-productive to a thread, then why didn't you just say that? Instead you called him a red-neck, referred to him as "this character Styrer" and accused him of not knowing his limitations. You should have known perfectly well the kind of response you were going to get back for and therefore you did start the slanging match off.

Styrer - apologies for stepping in again where you are more than capable of sticking up for yourself but I'm an annoying cow who just can't help herself sometimes.

Off for coffee and biscuits now

10. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #202236 by ForestMist on July 1, 2008 at 5:11 am

interested observer - you may not agree with the language that Styrer uses in his posts, but if it upsets you that much then just don't read them. Using your first post to start a slanging match with someone over their use of expletives seems a wee bit strange to me. And quite how you are able to slag him off for swearing but are then able to call him "cletus" in an obviously offensive way is a bit like pot calling kettle black isn't it?

11. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200227 by ForestMist on June 27, 2008 at 5:47 am

Gregg,

I've not really read anything that txpiper has posted so I can't make any comments about what he does or does not believe. But "never hearing a religious word in their life" - that's going a little bit too far isn't it? I don't think that religious beliefs should have anything to do with deciding what laws we have or what science is taught in schools or anything like that, but having a society where people will never hear anything religious is a bit scary isn't it? I loved the Greek and Norse myths when I was younger, and I wouldn't want to deprive other people of reading them. And before anyone says that no one believes in them anymore, I have a friend who does believe in the Norse gods.

12. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200215 by ForestMist on June 27, 2008 at 5:20 am

At the risk of being lynched....

I went to a C of E primary school for a couple of years. The vicar used to come and talk to us about God once a fortnight or so, we had the usual harvest festivals etc up in the church and had Nativity Plays at Christmas (I was Mary one year too!). We always used to go and draw the church in art lessons (a very good way to get better at the whole perspective thing) and I remember on one occasion us all going to the church and having to write a poem about it (mine even got published in the Church magazine). In my previous primary schools we did the usual singing hymns in assembly and reciting the Lord's Prayer, and I got to play the Good Samiritan in an assembly that our class did once.

But by the time I was 12 I was an atheist and didn't believe in any of it.

Going to a religious school is not necessarily going to make you religious. Going to a secular school is not necessarily going to make you an atheist.

However (and this is a big however) I do not agree with the teaching of creationism in Science classes because it blatanty is not science, it is religion.

13. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191980 by ForestMist on June 12, 2008 at 8:26 am

Podaar - the point I'm trying to make is that while I have nothing against recommending a book for being very interesting reading or well written or anything like that, I just don't like the idea of recommending a book purely and solely because of its atheistic content.

Does that make a bit more sense?

14. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191968 by ForestMist on June 12, 2008 at 7:47 am

Mixmastergaz - the links to books on the side of the page are all for Richard Dawkin's books, and seeing as this is RD net I can't see how any sane person could object to that.

Why is it natural that atheists should take particular note of atheistic music or films? Am I unnatural then in liking Current 93 and Surfjan Stevens?

I can fully understand recommending a book because of it being well written or having interesting content, and the same for a film, but recommending something just because it was atheist in tone? That just scares me.

Again, forgive me if you think I am being annoying on this, but it is just something I feel incredibly strongly about (especially having had a friend at school who would only read books that her church said were ok for her to read - she wouldn't even touch my copy of Weaveworld!)

15. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191959 by ForestMist on June 12, 2008 at 7:29 am

AtheistJon,

I would hope that my atheist friends wouldn't be too worried about that to recommend me a good film that they saw

I can't think of a film that I've enjoyed that I would recommend to a friend based solely on whether they are atheist or not; however there are films I wouldn't recommend to some friends as I know they don't like scary films or action films etc.

I personally don't take any notice of someone's religion when it comes to their music - David Tibet has some rather strange Christian beliefs but I would recommend some of Current 93's albums to anyone, no matter what they believed in.I also don't like Phil Collins' music (well, apart from "In the air tonight" which brings back fond memories of being a teenage and watching Miami Vice), so I certainly wouldn't prefer to listen to stuff by him than I would to tracks by Surfjan Stevens.

Cartomancer - can you think of a fiction book that would have greater relevance to an atheist than it would to any kind of theist? The only one that I can think of that would come close would be the Dark Materials trilogy, but I know theists who love those books so I don't think that they really count.

And what is "atheist culture"? It sounds like something that David Robertson has come up with!

I know I'm probably being annoying and pedantic, but I just don't like the idea of "atheist films" or "atheist fiction" or "atheist music" - it just sounds exclusionary and the concept fills me with incredibly deep unease.

16. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191922 by ForestMist on June 12, 2008 at 5:50 am

AtheistJon,

Re your comments about recommended atheist film viewing and music section - I have said this before in another thread quite a while ago, but the whole idea of recommended atheist viewing, reading and listening worries me deeply. Why should a particular book be recommended reading for an atheist, why not recommended reading for everyone? Once you start saying that "this is a film that atheists should watch" or "this is a track that an atheist should listen to" then you are basically excluding all non-theists, and exclusion is a bad road to walk on down. I don't read books based on whether the person who wrote them was an atheist or whether the subject matter is atheist. I don't give a damn when I listen to music if the artist is atheist or not, and if I like the music I don't care if the subject matter is religious - one of my favourite songs is the version of "Idumea" that Will Oldham sings on a Current 93 album which is exceedingly religious in nature.
David Robertson is convinced that there is an atheist creed despite there not being one. Having a recommended viewing and listening list for atheists is not exactly going to help persuade him otherwise, is it?

17. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180482 by ForestMist on May 15, 2008 at 4:38 am

Richard Morgan - I am wondering why you chose to understand your "mystical" experience as evidence of the Christian god. I've had times when thought has completely ceased and there is a sense of complete and total one-ness with everything, and for me it came with an intense joy that made me completely catch my breath. Is this the kind of experience you had? For me those moments are completely wondrous, but I would not class them as religious or supernatural. For me it was the falling away of the ego-construct of our brains and an experience of the reality of what is, as oppposed to the virtual reality that our thoughts construct for us, and therefore was a wholly natural experience. If a similar thing happened to you, I am curious as to why you interpreted if from a Christian point of view.

18. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180005 by ForestMist on May 14, 2008 at 4:53 am

I think some of the problem with this article, especially the bit about

Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is

is the use of the word "god". I think what he is trying to describe here is the loss of self - those moments when thought ceases and the seperation between yourself and everything else just totally drops away and you are a part of everything and everything is a part of you.

19. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176811 by ForestMist on May 8, 2008 at 5:25 am

ASMarques - I still don't think you've answered my question. I didn't ask why lots and lots of historians weren't writting books/articles on the Holocaust, I was asking why the vast majority of historians go along with your "hoax". If the evidence is as flimsy as you claim, then why hasn't every historian said so? What possible reason have all these people got for going along with the "hoax"?

I actually do not talk a lot about governments. I don't recall having mentioned them before. I only mentioned them in my last post as I was querying a statement you had made. And you didn't answer my question - why would the German and Austrian governments have gone along with this "hoax" for purely Carthaginian reasons, as you said previously.

I don't think anything would have happened to Albert Speer if on release from Spandau he had said that the Holocaust never happened, but that he only took responsibility for it in the Trials to avoid being killed. The fact is that for the rest of his life he continued to apologise for it - the actions of a man who knew it never happened? Seems highly unlikely, don't you think?

And comparing the War Trials to Witchcraft trials is a bit trite don't you think?

I have to wonder, is there anything that could possibly change your mind about the "hoax"? It seems that everything that doesn't agree with your point-of-view is wrong, or else people have been made to say things by other agencies (and for some reason the "British" seem to be your new baddies) or else killed by other agencies. Again, why would so many people go along with this "hoax"?

20. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176512 by ForestMist on May 7, 2008 at 2:12 pm

ASMarques - most amusing!
But I did pose some of those questions on the 23rd April back on the Interviews with Richard Dawksins and Michael Shermer thread, so somehow I don't think I'm first in your thoughts!!

21. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176470 by ForestMist on May 7, 2008 at 12:15 pm

ASMarques - any chance of an answer?

22. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176281 by ForestMist on May 7, 2008 at 4:59 am

ASMarques - could you please explain to me why every historian who has ever written anything on the Holocaust (apart from those who go against it, of course) goes along with the world wide hoax which you appear to believe in? And do you really think that the German and Austrian government would go along with this hoax for "Carthaginian reasons"? And why didn't every single German who was tried at Nuremberg say that the Holocaust never happened and it was all made up? Quite a few of them were sentenced to death anyway, so them then saying it never happened wouldn't have done them any harm. And why did Albert Speer keep on apologising for it if it had never happened?

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170833 by ForestMist on April 28, 2008 at 4:54 am

Melissa - can you please explain to me why your god created evil? You say he created Adam and Eve with the capacity to sin so that they would have free will, but does this seem to you like the work of a nice, good, caring individual? Why on earth would a good god create evil? Why couldn't he have just made a nice fluffy place where people live happily and all get along and no one ever hurts anyone? That, surely, would be what a good god would create, as opposed to a world where people kill other people, or die from really hideous and painful diseases. He could have given people free will to decide whether they preferred oranges to satsumas, or thought horses are better to ride than camels, but no - this supposed good, caring god gave people the choice between violence or non-violence. How on earth does that make any sense??You say that he then sent Jesus to redeem everyone, but what about all those people who died a: before he was even born, and b: died before they'd ever heard of him? Does this mean that anyone who lived in South America before the Conquistadores turned up are going to burn in hell for eternity because they hadn't accepted Jesus into their hearts, despite the fact that they had had no chance to have heard anything about him? And if he was the god who created everything, why on earth did he only reveal himself to the inhabitants of a country in the middle east? Why didn't he reveal the 10 commandments, for example, to every single nation on earth at the same time to avoid any confusion? And why did Jesus only appear in Israel and not turn up in other continents to make sure that everyone knew about him at the same time?

24. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #166920 by ForestMist on April 23, 2008 at 1:42 pm

ASMarques - I'm continually astounded by how long your posts are, they make mine look paltry by comparision. i don't know how you find the time!

First off, yes the quotes I gave were from Joachim Fest's biography on Hitler. I personally have found it to be very well written and quite fascinating. The reviews I have read of his biography have been good, so I would be interested as to why you call him credulous. I will though have a look and see if the AJP Taylor one is in the library next time I go - I have a vague recollection of reading a book of his about WW1 when I was University, but can't remember which one. I see that quite a lot of historians seem to disagree with him on some aspects, but interestingly enough Joachim Fest (who you called credulous) seems to agree with him on a number on points, including the disastrous result of the Treaty of Versailles.

Whether it is the annihilation of Jews themselves or the annihilation of their influence that he meant, my point is that is would be incredibly easy for someone else who hates the Jews to read into that he meant annihilate them as people and to go ahead and do that, confident in the fact that it would meet his approval.

Do you really believe the German personnel was intent on having themselves hanged for war crimes?

- In the main, no I don't, which could explain why Krammer asked for relief - he was attempting to make himself look better by appearing to ask for help.

I asked you about the eviction of Jews from their houses / flats in Berlin because this, again, is something that shows the anti-semitism of the Nazi regime.

I mentioned that I disagree with some of the allied actions in WW2 as I did not want you to think I am a "bad Germany, it was all their fault, no one else did anything wrong" person.

And I do know that Der Spiegel is not a Nazi publication. I did GCSE and A'Level German and can remember having to translate articles from there on a fairly regular basis. I also used to live in Germany and absolutely loved it there, so don't think that I am someone who is anti-German.

Out of interest, why would historians be subservient to jewish interests? What reason would they have for doing so? That seems ever-so-slightly conspiracy theory-ish.

I actually don't like war films, and especially not Hollywood war films, and would not make any decisions on what to believe or not to believe based on a film (just look what they did to "The Dark Is Rising"!!) And what daily Hate Hour on tv are you on about? And what actions have been distorted?

No, I don't know what Hitler thought - by the same token neither did you and therefore you cannot tell me that he did not intend to destroy Germany, because you do not know what he thought either. Albert Speer no doubt made the whole thing up as well in order to avoid the death sentence? Seeing as neither of use knew what Hitler thought, could you explain to me your comment on him believing, and with good reason, that genocidal policies were being prepared for Germany?

I don't see why my suggestion that Himmler could have thought that killing jews would be fine because time and again Hitler had expressed anti-semitic views is a bad premise and bad conclusion.

I still don't understand the whole hoax thing though, and why so many people would have gone along, and still do so, with it. What would anyone actually be getting out of it? It just perplexes me utterly.

Anyway, off-ski time here, but I will look in again tomorrow

25. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #166285 by ForestMist on April 23, 2008 at 5:00 am

ASMarques - apologies for having forgotten your earlier post where you mentioned you were Portugese and for having completely forgotten that many continental languages have female and male versions of words that we don't have in English. After having done Latin and German for quite a few years I should have remembered that, and I appreciate that it was a language thing and nothing deliberate.

I would like to say that I wasn't trying to say you were a national socialist or anything like that, I was just genuinely interested in what you thought of various other things that happened in WW2, what with them taking place at the same time as the Holocaust.

Re the 6 million figure - to be perfectly honest I had thought it was "a lot" of Jews, gypsies, mentally handicapped and other "unter-menschen" (sorry, don't know how to put the umlaut above the u)who were deliberately killed by the Nazi regime. But you do seem to be saying that you not only think the 6 million figure is an over-estimate but that there was no action taken against those groups other than what would happen in a normal war situation. Why would, for example, someone like Albert Speer go along with it not only during his Nuremburg Trial but also after his release and up to his death? In what way did he profit from going along with the "hoax"?

26. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #165836 by ForestMist on April 22, 2008 at 12:55 pm

ASMarques - thank you for answering my points.

My question about why you differentiated between male and female historian was based on the fact that after male names you just put "historian" but after the two female names you put "woman historian". I can't quite work out why that was necessary. For example

according to the historian Georges Wellers (1973) and according to the woman historian Lucy Davidowicz (1975

(see comment 15738)

[Translation for the slower readers: Since the "Holocaust" hoax is being criticized in an informed way, let's urgently evade the theme by invoking something else that will allow us to shout "Nazi!"]

Actually that isn't true at all, although I can see why you could think so. I actually asked them because my bloke asked me what had me tapping away on the keyboard so fast and when I told him that I was posting on a thread where another poster was questioning the veracity of the Holocaust, he asked me what you actually believed in. That then got me wondering what your opinions were on other aspects of WW2, hence my other questions.

Stalag XIB and XID were POW camps that were very near to Bergen-Belsen and housed Soviet and Italian POWs, and then later on Western Ally POWs after the German army left Poland and took the POWs with them - I think it was called The Long March or something similar.(I must admit to a slighly morbid interest in them as I went to a school built on one of the sites and lived in converted offices that were used by the SS in the war).

I'm not quite sure why my question about Hitler's anti-semitic and anti-Eastern European views is irrelevant to a question on the veracity of the Holocaust taking place. Surely the fact that Hitler expressed such anti-semitic views is a hugely relevant question, especially when he made specific comments about intending to wipe the Jews out when he got into office. On November 8th 1938, he made a speech in Munich where he talked of the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". in 1933, Goebebels said the NSDAP intended "to annihilate German Jewry". Another quote from Hitler - "when I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the coming war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin". Before he came to power he also said that once he got in, one of the first things he would do would be to exterminate the jews. I'm currently trying to find that quote - will post it when I have found it.

Re Germany invading Poland - I do have a pretty good understanding of why Hitler wanted to invade Poland (indeed the fact that Danzig was a German city before the Treaty of Versailles could be seen as being a justification of the invasion - certainly Hitler used that fact to justify his actions). I must admit that I am slighly baffled why you think that the invasion of Poland was not justified but the invasion of France was - France had only declared war on Germany because Hitler had ordered the invasion of Poland despite knowing beforehand that such an action would mean both France and Britain declaring war on Germany.

I'm also slightly confused about your response re Hitler's scorched earth policy - I'm not talking about Hitler wanting to destroy the infrastructure in France or Russia when his troops had to withdraw (although he did want this to happen), I am talking about him ordering the infrastructure in Germany itself being destroyed. He thought that if the German people were weak enough to have lost the war, they did not deserve to survive. Again, I do not think that this is irrelevant to the question of the Holocaust as if Hitler was perfectly happy for his own people to die, then his attitude towards those people he had piled such hate upon would be such that people like Himmler wouldn't have had any doubt that their actions would be approved.

Re conditions in Bergen-Belsen after the camp was liberated - it isn't really a surprise that so many people continued to die as the conditions were so terrible that it would not have taken a couple of days to sort things out. The destruction of one of the hospitals afterwards by the Germans didn't exactly help either. Plus the Allies weren't expecting to come across such a place at Belsen - they did what they could to help but to start with they were not very successful. There is, however, a huge difference between what happened after Belsen was liberated and what happened when the SS were in charge of the camp - the Allies tried their best to help, the SS didn't give a damn what went on and made no effort to alleviate conditions in any way. I am not particuarly convinced by Kommandant Krammer's justifications for the terrible conditions - I think there is somewhat a tone of "it wasn't my fault, honest guv" in there.

By the way, I am not saying (EDIT - took out denying as that wasn't what I mean) that the Allies behaved impeccably during WW2. I feel that the bombing of the German cities was totally unjustified and should not have taken place.

I'm curious, out of interest, as to what you think of the eviction of Jews in Berlin from houses / flats that Albert Speer appropriated for use by those whose houses had been destroyed by allied bombings of Berlin.

27. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #165711 by ForestMist on April 22, 2008 at 5:00 am

ASMarques - back again I see. Are you ever going to bother to answer my questions on the other thread, or are you going to ignore comments unless you can specifically link them to your favourite subject of the Holocaust?

You never answered why you differentiated between male and female historians. You never responded to my last point about Bergen-Belsen.

But let's put the ball in your court (should you decided to have the guts to respond to questioning) - what exactly do you believe happened in the WW2? Did Hitler have any anti-semitic, anti-Eastern european views? Did he invade, for example, Poland and France for any justifiable reasons? What you do think about his scorched earth policy for Germany? How do you feel about the conditions in Bergen-Belsen? How do you feel about conditions in Stalag XIB, XID and other POW camps? How do you feel about the SA purge in 1934? Is the whole thing a conspiracy or just bits of it?

Re Bergen-Belsen - did you not read from the rest of my post? I made the point that while those who died there may not have been gassed, the fact that the SS in charge of the camp did nothing to alleviate the conditions in the camp mean that they killed those people, in the same way that those who were in charge of Stalag XIB just up the road in Fallingbostel were responsible for the deaths of the Italian, Soviet and other POWs in the terrible conditions there (although nothing like as bad as at Bergen-Belsen)

28. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #162457 by ForestMist on April 17, 2008 at 2:20 am

ASMarques - still not answering questions I see? Hmmm, why am I not surprised??

29. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159546 by ForestMist on April 12, 2008 at 1:12 pm

myarbrough61 - why, what's so good about believing you were created by god? And what's wrong with rocks? The ones in "Labyrinth" were really helpful in helping Sarah rescue her brother

30. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159441 by ForestMist on April 12, 2008 at 7:51 am

ASMarques - running and hiding again?

You never answered why you differentiated between male and female historians. You never responded to my last point about Bergen-Belsen.

But let's put the ball in your court (should you decided to have the guts to respond to questioning) - what exactly do you believe happened in the WW2? Did Hitler have any anti-semitic, anti-Eastern european views? Did he invade, for example, Poland and France for any justifiable reasons? What you do think about his scorched earth policy for Germany? How do you feel about the conditions in Bergen-Belsen? How do you feel about conditions in Stalag XIB, XID and other POW camps? How do you feel about the SA purge in 1934? Is the whole thing a conspiracy or just bits of it?

31. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158380 by ForestMist on April 10, 2008 at 12:09 pm

ASMarques - I find it incredibly strange that you can come up with all those quotes but are not able to say where you got them from. If you cannot tell us where the quotes came from, then they will be disregarded. As for trusting you, I don't even know you, so that is a exceedingly daft thing to say.

Re Bergen-Belsen - did you not read from the rest of my post? I made the point that while those who died there may not have been gassed, the fact that the SS in charge of the camp did nothing to alleviate the conditions in the camp mean that they killed those people, in the same way that those who were in charge of Stalag XIB just up the road in Fallingbostel were responsible for the deaths of the Italian, Soviet and other POWs in the terrible conditions there (although nothing like as bad as at Bergen-Belsen)

32. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158331 by ForestMist on April 10, 2008 at 10:57 am

Quetzacoatl - I think you could add despicable to reprehensbible and contemptible

33. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158326 by ForestMist on April 10, 2008 at 10:49 am

ASMarques - no answer on where you got your quotes from?
And do you really think that those people who died at Bergen-Belsen weren't killed? The fact that the sanitary and living conditions were so horrific and yet nothing was done to improve would suggest to me that the SS in charge of the camp not only didn't give a damn about how many people died, but that they were responsible for it. The fact that the Nazis bombed one of the hospitals after handing over Bergen-Belsen to the allies shows that they were deliberately killing the people there - it doesn't make a difference that they weren't gassed but were left to die in horrific conditions.

34. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158278 by ForestMist on April 10, 2008 at 9:27 am

ASMarques - is it possible for you to reply to any question without having to copy and paste? Could you also enlighten us as to a: who said those statements you have quoted, b: where did you find these quotes? - books and authors please

35. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158250 by ForestMist on April 10, 2008 at 8:56 am

ASMarques - rather than trying to compare the Holocaust with religion, why don't you actually answer one of the questions that have been put to you?

36. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158221 by ForestMist on April 10, 2008 at 8:24 am

ASMarques - why is it irrelevant that other groups were killed in the Holocaust? If the whole thing were a jewish conspiracy, then why on earth would they also include gypsys, gays, the mentally handicapped and others?
Also, can you explain to me why you felt necessary to define one of the historians you mentioned in a previous post as a "woman historian"? Why couldn't you just say "historian"?

37. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157781 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Ian - the bombing of Dresden did not help to bring an end to the conflict at all. The bombing of all the German civilian sites didn't change Hitler's mind one bit, it didn't halt the war or make it come to an early end. Things only came to an end when the Russians got to Berlin and it was obvious that there was no way out. The bombing of Dresden and Cologne and the other cities didn't make any difference.

38. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157751 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Well, I've discovered something of interest thanks to Mr Scumbag Man - my old primary school was built on a old POW camp site. Can't find anything about the blocks of flats that made up the married quarters being old SS and Gestapo offices though like my mum's always told me (used to live in Fallingbostel camp when I was little, not too far from Bergen-Belsen)

39. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157738 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm

ASMarques - I hadn't addressed what you think illuminates on what happened at Bergen-Belsen because I hadn't seen the link. Was I meant to be impressed by the site?? Of course, there is no point in asking that seeing as you have buggered off (not that I am complaining about that) because you know you are talking complete bollocks.

40. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157727 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm

al-rawandi - my bloke keeps on telling me that I am incredibly easy to wind up over some matters. I have to agree with him. I have to admit as well that I hadn't realised quite how appalling, and ineffectual, the Allied bombings were until I started reading a book on Albert Speer by Dan Van Der Vat (almost finished now) - fascinating read, would well recommend it (it's called "The Good Nazi - the life and lies of Albert Speer"

41. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157718 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:10 pm

In respect to the bombings of Germany during the war, the allies actually did very little long-term damage to the war effort in Germany - mainly thanks (if that is the right word) to some damned good planning by Albert Speer. A lot of the factories weren't bombed more than once, and Speer's organisation was so good that they were quite often producing goods again only a week later

42. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157716 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

al-rawandi - I think it is very wrong to say that every German shares responsibility for what happened under the Nazis. (Indeed, it was the bit in the Versailles Treaty that held every single german, no matter how old, as equally responsible for the 1st World War that helped Hitler get into power in the first place). People like Sophie Scholl did what they could against the Nazis, and she was executed for it - are you saying she shares responsibility for the Nazi's crimes despite doing all she could against them? Lots of germans who spoke out against the Nazis vanised into concentration camps - are they responsible for what happened? And they did not have the chance to stand up for what was right - how many elections do you think there were once Hitler was established in power? You had the SA roaming the streets beating up anyone who spoke against the Nazis until 1934, then you had the SS and the Gestapo. You had parents scared of saying anything in case their children repeated it back to their Hitler Youth leaders. It was not like the situation now in the US or the UK where people are free to speak out against the ruling parties without fear of reprisal, it was a different kettle of fish back then.

43. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157672 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 11:58 am

ASMarques - First off I would like to point out that while Jews made up the largest number of those who died in the Holocaust, don't forget about the other groups who were also sent to the Death & Concentration camps, including gypsys and gays. The Nazi regime also targetted the mentally handicapped. Have you ever read "Die Weisse Rose"? I have. It concerns The White Rose German resistance group, who included Sophie Scholl. They talk about meeting a nun who worked in a school for mentally handicapped children. One day the SS turn up and take about half the kids away and shoot them. The remaining kids ask the nuns what is going on and the nuns tell them that their friends have gone to meet Jesus. So of course when the SS come back for the rest of the kids, they go off with them hand in hand because they're going to meet Jesus. No doubt this is a lie as well?
And by the way, I have been to Bergen-Belsen. Are you really trying to tell me that everything I saw there was faked? And its in the middle of a bloody big forest - very easy to see how the local population didn't know what was going on there. And if the whole thing has been faked, why on earth would the Germans go on with the fake when it makes them look so bad?

44. Fleabytes

Comment #157449 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 5:39 am

Quetzalcoatl - thank you for posting that link.

I'm another person who mainly lurks and only occasionally posts, but I've never thought that the people who post here are a joyless bunch. There have been some posts that have made me fume, some posts that have made me hit my head against the desk and some that have made me laugh out loud.

When RM posted that comment on the FOCS site, he would have known that someone from this site would have read it. I could very well be reading it wrongly, but it may be that he feels angry at this site and the people who post on it for not being the community he wished it to be, for not satisfying his need to fit in somewhere, and so the best way to get back at the site is to make such a posting on the FCOS site. Am highly likely wrong though.

45. Beware the Believers

Comment #155025 by ForestMist on April 4, 2008 at 4:50 am

Kardashovel -

Now you may think that it is no big deal to deliberately kill a "day old" embryo, much less a second-trimester fetus. I don't share that view. I think abortion is immoral and that has nothing specifically to do with what is "natural".

On what do you base your assertation that abortion is immoral? Is it because of what you think or is it because your religion tells you that?

46. Fleabytes

Comment #154311 by ForestMist on April 3, 2008 at 5:08 am

mixmastergaz - many thanks for your response - the whole regular themed show thing has put my mind at ease, and in the context of your other ones (previous and planned) a themed programme of songs with atheistic lyrics fits in fine.
But the idea of promoting music by an artist/group just because they are atheist sits very uncomfortably with me. Liking or not liking a song is all to do with the song, and not what the person behind the song thinks about supernatural sky daddies. But quite a few people here have already said that, which is a good thing.

47. Fleabytes

Comment #154067 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm

epeeist - I worry about lots of things that I shouldn't worry about (including whether Dexter is bad because he is a serial killer or not bad because he only kills other serial killers; and whether or not it is normal to be continually aware in every dream that I have that it is a dream). But I don't worry about them enough to keep me from going to sleep! :)

48. Fleabytes

Comment #154058 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm

markg - maybe I am reading too much into it, but I still don't understand what difference it makes as to whether a musician is atheist or not. In some ways (as my bloke is arguing with me) there is nothing wrong (idealistically) with having an hours worth of music where the all lyrics are atheistic, but it is also then perfectly fine to have an hours worth of music on any day of the week where all the lyrics are religious. (although I still don't feel comfortable with either). But if the programme is just going to feature groups who are atheist regardless of the lyrical content, then that scares me to death.

49. Fleabytes

Comment #154052 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm

markg - I take it back, I do get why you posted the list - in response to mixmastergaz asking for music by atheists/agnostics. As I said, frazzled brain but that is a crap excuse really, so apologies.
However, I then don't get why mixmastergaz wanted to produce a show with music by just atheists and agnostics. I still just don't get it

50. Fleabytes

Comment #154047 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

markg - I just don't get why you posted the list though. It just came across to me as a bit "these artists are atheist, so its fine to listen to them". That may be miles away from what you were intending, but it's just the way it seemed to me. It felt a bit like when I was in the 6th form and my born-again christian friend told me that she was told not to read anything by Clive Barker because he was "bad" and that I would go to hell becuase I did read (and loved) his books. Surely music should be classed as music, not seperately as atheistic music and religious music and the same for books. You can divide them into good, bad, indifferent or whatever, but to divide music into atheist or agnostic or religious just feels to me to be both wrong and also potentially divisive.
Again, brain is slightly frazzled tonight, so please don't take anything I am saying as being nasty etc, as it is not meant that way at all.