1. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62554 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 5:05 am

Quick note to LeeC: I will get back to with a full response, promise. But please stop worrying about offending me!
It saddens me when some people try to be offensive, perhaps because my remarks get too close to the bone, but I too have no intention of causing offence; so now I simply skip the postings from people whom I know to be (or have been) deliberately offensive, which makes things a bit quicker for me anyway.

You strike me as very interesting & polite. I promise to let you know if I am offended, but I am pretty thick skinned, so relax, you silly git! ;-)

Regards Ash

2. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62550 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 4:57 am

Very amusing, Goldy, :-) The reason I mention it is because I still think it is wierd. To whom exactly are you rebels demonstrating your right-on free grammar? If you don't like the prime minister of Britain, does this mean that you with start writing "gordon brown"? You are missing the point Goldy, or do you really claim to be SO OPRESSED by Christians that you feel the need to join a grammatical campaign? You are surely not trying to demonstrate your indifference to God are you?
If you know anything about the scriptures you will know that He doesn't care! Nor do Christians. I was told, on first joining this site, that I should stick to accepted grammatical rules in order to be understood more easily; well the door doesn't swing both ways then does it.
If you really think it's worth sacrificing grammatical rules on the alter of some atheistic rebellion against 1 person on an otherwise entirely atheistic website, then fill yer boots. I still think that my "niggle" says more about atheistic insecurity than anything else, & I seem to be proved right by the "pack" mentality manifesting itself.
Theat not withstanding, you are a funny guy. You've asked the audience, and the answer has been pretty resounding. Perhaps you should phone a friend? ;-)

Keep 'em commin', Ash

3. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62545 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 4:31 am

Hello LeeC, Do you write professionally? Always a good read but my answer to all of your points will be dissapointingly simple (though I promise to do a proper job when I've had time to think). I was brought up as an atheist & was in my early 30s when I came to Christ. I had some Christian friends & loved debating the questions with them. One day, after I had been holding forth in the pub about how almost all Biblical phenomena could be explained by science, in much the same way you have in your last postings (only I wasn't as funny or slick as you), another atheist -playing Devil's ad'- said to me, "How do you know that the very natural, scientific phenomena you describe was not created by God for these purposes?"

I didn't take the question very seriously at first (booze will do that to you) but, to get to the point, I read a book called Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees. I realised how utterly profound the intricate ballance of the universe is. If a hygrogen atom at the opposite end of the universe was 1 iota bigger or smaller, no Earth, no humanity. The fine ballance of the moon in relation to Earth's delicate orbit, etc. Rees even finds himself, though having written a secular book, forced to deal with the obvious religious implications in the ballance of creation.

It was then that I took my first "leap of faith" & prayed. I cannot prove God to any one. Asking someone to do so is fruitless. You will find Him inside your heart or not at all. And the knowledge of what you find there, if you find God, will be constantly under attack, which is why faith is required to defend it.

I will give a better & more direct and considered answer to your questions Lee, but please consider what I have said here seriously. I am not out to convert anyone on this site, but I am interested in the debate about why it is ok to treat Christians like dirt in some places, & what do atheists really believe?

All the Best, Ash

4. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62540 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 4:04 am

PopeStig, hello, I agree, almost entirely with your points on Northern Ireland, with one key exception.

Let me be clear, If I resorted to rhetoric, I would be more skillful than that, I assure you. I am honestly blurting out what I believe.

You feel I was trying to put words into your mouth? It is you who is saying that the troubles in Northern Ireland are about religion primarily. If this is so, people have been executed, bombed, assasinated, etc. for primarily religious reasons. It then follows that the perpetrators of these crimes did so in the belief that they were pleasing their God. You can't have it both ways. There is no straw man but that which you stand up in front of me. How else are we to suppose that they went about their business?
I was merely pointing out how absurd the whole concept becomes when you think it through. I never suggested that you said it, I'm saying it. It dosen't stand up to scrutiny. Religion is too convenient a scapegoat. It has been the dressing, even the armour, but not the body of the issue. It is perhaps for this reason that all attempts to seek religious solutions have proved fruitless. Secular problems required secular sollutions. We agree on this point, and I pray that the peace lasts.

Regards. Ash

5. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62532 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 3:46 am

An apology to those who were offended.
Though I did not say that Dawkins has ever said that he thinks all Christians are evil, I suspect it is what he believes. I have better grounds for thinking this than you may think. However, it was a gross over-generalisation which I acknowledge that I cannot substantiate.
Sorry. Ash

6. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62530 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 3:41 am

To those who took an interest in the catholisism / Hitler thing, Nails, Bonzai & the rest.

Firstly Nails, you know quite well that it was YOU who accused Christian history of being a catalogue of "horror stories" & the quote you dug up & fired back at me was a direct response to yours. I have reminded you of this before. Can't you move on? It's all there in black & white for all to see. I seriously doubt if this line is adding anything new to the debate or interesting anybody other than you?

Yes, everybody, the allies of WW II were also A-theist, by the same definition as the one I gave. Where did I claim otherwise? But no, more unpleasant assumptions have been made about my position; & why? Because I disagree on faith. I'm glad I'm not in a tribunal with half of you. I'd be burned at the stake before I got to finish a sentence!

And, for the benefit of the Catholic Hitler experts; I suppose when he spent a fortune in time, resources and top men on digging into pagan myths, in an attempt to prove them true (so as to establish a lineage, religion & ancient arian history) for propaganda purposes, he was a practicing catholic at the same time? Sinning is one thing, but attempting to dismantle the basis of your own religion and replace it with another is surely not the most "faithful" act. And what have we established here? Not much. This is an asside really.

Nails, hello, with regard to your Kamikazee argument. The tactic was not nearly so effective as you suggest, I doubt if other people are buying into it. So there was an Emporer, revered as a god, so what? Most of those kids did those suicide attacks because they were threatened with ignomony & execution any way (look closer into the history). And "science tells us . . ." is not an argument. It is a spurious statement at best. What does it mean? It's the sort of thing people say on telly when they're tring to sell you soap powder.

7. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62523 by Ash Roskell on August 10, 2007 at 3:12 am

To All;
Well, the "God / god" thing really seems to have exited some people. Just to be clear on this: I don't personally care what style of grammar people choose to use. It does not bother me in the slightest. So you presume too much if think that I wish to dictate the way you write the name. However, it is clear from the comments bouncing around the ether that some people have, what I can only describe as, chips on their shoulders about the whole thing. How you could derive from my comments that I want to dictate your terms of referrence, or that there is some sort of Christian domination thing going on, is beyond me? I pointed out my feelings on the subject and asked the question. I neither asked anyone to change their behaviour nor said that it offended me. There is a lot of unwarrented agression around on this site.

Are all atheists this touchy? Anybody interested in a debate between equals or will the majority of you be looking down your noses at me because I do not agree with your beliefs?

8. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62083 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 5:40 am

Hello PopeStig, You have a fair and knotty point. Though I think you also offer a hint at its solution in your own remarks. It is safe to say, I think, that the situation in Ireland has continually evolved over the centuries but that the distinction between Catholic or Protestant has not; even though the tennets of both faiths have. This, in a way, proves my contention. Whilst the political and religious themes have changed, the need for a convenient distinction between potential targets has not. There are those who have lived with these "troubles" (and I have met them) who would say that the violence has never been about religion, but about occupation, power, history, revenge; anything but religion.

Not all would agree obviously, but I didn't ask if any one could find a way to prove me wrong? I asked what you really believed? Do you believe that any of the bombers or assasins on either side of that conflict had an image of Jesus or Mother Mary in their head as their motivating thought? Come on! Let's get real. Lets not waste keyboard presses. We could ware out our fingers on such non-arguments. Dawkins wants you to believe that we Christians are evil. He has his own motives, which I suspect is more than just selling books. But just think it through. It dosen't even make sense.

Regards. Ash

9. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62072 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 5:19 am

Hello Goldy, There are plenty of Jews, Muslims, etc. who would not agree that the West is "by default" Christian. Besides, all you have really given us there is some sort of untidy generalism of the "all property is theft" strain. If you are trying to tell us that all Westerners are by default Christians, then you have just established that the majority of contributers to this site (including Richard Dawkins) are "by default" Christians. Well done! Doubt if I will ever win so many converts at a stroke as you have!
Thanks for playing, NEXT! :-) A

10. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62036 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 1:44 am

Hello Nails, Your comments regarding the Kamikazee pilots seemed to answer itself. Brainwashing, not religion or faith. Just a bit of a con which turned otherwise normal human beings into suicide divebombers.

This Hitler / Catholic thing. You really should let it go. He did not require catholisism from the men who faught under him, or those who committed war crimes in his regime. There were none believers, people who believed in the spurious myths they tried to dig up from the past (including Hitler by the way - not so devout a catholic after all) people who thought of themselves as Christian; they even had muslims in the SS (bet you didn't know that? ;) ) So, baring in mind that nobody cried, "for the Pope!" when running into battle or carried a Papal banner, put all of these faiths and none faiths together and what have you got? A-THEISM. Q.E.D., he said smugly ;)

All the best, Ash

11. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62034 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 1:32 am

Finally, LeeC, (I think :) ) You have narrowed your search for truth down to two or three fields of enquiry: physics, law & history, but primarily physics. Tell me, do you think first of physics when dealing with your relationships? Is physical proof all upon which you can rely when falling in love? Or do you search deeper, inside yourself for more durable truths which cannot be defined in mathamatical terms at times such as these? Knowing something of your partner's personal history is helpful, and the law tells you if and when you can marry, or what other rights a couple or their offspring may have. But this can only take you so far and tells you nothing of the love you may or may not feel for another.

If this is so, why is it so ludicrous to look into ones own heart and see what dwells therein. There are many wrongful claims made about Christians & I cannot defend every one. Christians do not hate homosexuals, or any one else for that matter.

Christ brought in a new order, fulfilling the prophesies of the Old Testament, and demanding that we treat all people with love. There is a difference between having a belief that certain practices are wrong, and condemning others for practicing them.

There must be a whole raft of things that all of you believe are wrong for you as individuals. But, just because you believe a thing to be wrong, I do not assume that you condemn others for doing it. But if like-minded people gather in a group and say they believe that certain practices are wrong, they should not be condemned for condemning others, as that is a prejudiced assumption. If a Christian condemns another person for anything, he is failing in his Christian duties. This, makes him wrong as a Christian; he must then repent of this sin and confess it to God. It does not make him no longer a Christian; it just makes him human, and wrong.

I have seen some appalling things in my career, and I, since becomming a Christian, have done things of which I am not proud. But I wonder what it is about atheists that they are so keen to steriotype and condemn. It is precisely this kind of behaviour which causes social animosity and strife. It is the sort of behaviour for which they condemn Christians.

Does anybody seriously believe, in this day and age, that Christianity is either causing wars or otherwise?

George Bush declares war; George Bush is a Christian; therefore Christians cause wars. How naive can you get?? You might as well say that all people called George cause wars.

Best regards. Ash

12. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62028 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 1:01 am

As to Roman histories, LeeC, you comment specifically that we do not get accounts of scriptural events in Latin or Greek. Being a fan of Roman history I am aware that they were notorious propagandists. The only people who were not Roman and get mentioned in their best historical records are those who either went to war with the Romans or who profoundly impacted Roman politics. Christ did neither of these things. Or, at least, the latter did not take place until centuries later and obviously was not enacted by Christ in person. There will not be many exceptions, if any, that you will be able to dig up to disprove that rule (though there are bound, probably, to be one or two that I can't think of just now).

It is also interesting, don't you think, to note that the New Testament comes into English translated from the Greek?

13. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62024 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 12:48 am

Hello LeeC, once again, NAILS I am comming to you, don't worry - one at a time :)

Your comments about the Christian stories not turning up in any books other than the Bible was amusing to me because you seemed to overlook an obvious point. The Bible IS lots of different books, compiled together into one volume. They were written at different times and in different languages and locations. They corroborate (I hope that's the right spelling?) each other. Consider; when the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed in the 50s, not one contradiction from the existing scriptures was found in them, though much corroboration was.

And why is it that all of you appear to be such conspiricy theorists? Why do you assume that because X volume does not make it into the final Bible, it has been "SUPRESSED"? Check your definitions guys! If the other volumes of which you speak HAD been supressed, then they would have been destroyed; or, at the very least, we would be aware of historical accounts of the attempts to distroy them, since they still exist for all to see.

It does not seem to occur to anybody that there may be perfectly legitmate and obvious reasons for not including certain (inacurate or bogus) books from a compilation. Oh no, of course, all Christians are evil, and therefore their motivation must also be evil?

Further remarks on this topic to follow . . .

14. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62017 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 12:31 am

Also, LeeC, I was intrigued by various comments you have made to others which seem to imply that you are witholding certain elements of your arguments, depending on the responses you elicit from me. Is there some reason as to why you should not feel entirely confident in your stance? Or is this just a tactical exercise for you? Why not just say what you believe? For my part, I simply, read the comments (skipping the ones I have designated as abusive) & type what comes to me; which I pray will be guided by God. Go on, spill the beans ;)

15. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62014 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 12:23 am

Hello LeeC, again, I seem to have made myself unclear with my referrence to the work of professor Simon Greenleaf. I was not evangelising on the basis that a one-time atheist came to Christ through his studies of history and, what he called, "witness testimonies". And I would challenge your comments with regard to his age and motives as somewhat cynical perhaps?

I was suggesting that you look at his ACTUAL WORK in this regard. After all, legal testing is one of the most "scientific" (if admittedly flawed in some ways) processes for examining people's behaviour, motives and truthfulness. It's not about what you think of him. Look at his work and decide on the credibility of it after that.

16. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62012 by Ash Roskell on August 8, 2007 at 12:12 am

Hello LeeC, to get to the heart of the questions you raised: Though I feel you are attempting to tie my hands with your definitions of what you see as "scientific" or "evidence" I will do my best to address your points.

If I told you that the Lord God would move the sun from its position or make the moon disapear and reapear on the other side of the planet tomorrow; & then we saw that this had happenned on the following day, surely your response would simply be to say that there was a scientific explanation for this phenomenon & explain it in these terms? God's hands are tied by your arguments as he is the creator of all that you would use to observe, define & subsequently explain the event; namely science?

You say you don't want to use philosophy in looking at these questions, yet both rules of thumb which you apply to the test are philosophical ones, conceived by philosophers. That is to say, Popper's "disprovability" & Ockham's "razor".

Ockham (or Occam - or other spellings - takes yer pick), who was a monk, by the way, (but it would be wrong to use that as an argument in this context, given that the only educated people of the time were monks, lawyers or royals), by employing the principal of his razor would have come to the conclusion that these events on the sun or moon were acts of God. Further, to quote his law, "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessitly", he would have extrapolated this, not out of an innate desire to prove God's existence, but simply because it is the simplest explanation of the event.

So are we allowed to talk about philosophy or only what you define as science? If so, I repeat, what are your definitions? I want a word with the ref' cos you're not playin' fair.

And there's more.

17. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62010 by Ash Roskell on August 7, 2007 at 11:45 pm

Hello all, I would just like to get a little niggle or two off my chest. The term "God", whether you believe in Him or not, is a proper noun; like Aladin or The Count of Monte Cristo. If I was referring to "a god", fine, no capital letter to begin the word. Is the obtuseness over this general point prevelant due to a desire to insult or due to a fear of being seen to acknowledge the existence of God in some way? In either case, surely, people can see that refusing to obay simple rules of grammar does not alter any of the arguments in any way? It simply reveals something about the writers. I wander who will have the character to take this argument on board?

Also, I admit to being sarcastic in my first posting when speaking in general terms of the qualities of comments on this site and about Richard Dawkins too. However, I have treated each individual with whom I have spoken, if rigorously, with politeness and due credit. When addressing an individual, particularly in argument, I believe it important and right to afford ones communicants dignity and courtesy (even if I can't spell very well).

I stand by my earlier comments in this regard and I will have no dialogue with the abusive. It dissapoints me to see Nails so easily swayed by the argument for treating people in this manner. I think any intelligent mind can make the distinction in the terms of my case here. Such attacks do demean both the argument and the man.

18. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62008 by Ash Roskell on August 7, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Hello, LeeC & Nails, I apologise for the delay in getting back to you, as I have been all over Britain & far from computer consoles. I have no intention of fleeing the arguments, I assure you. I have much retorting to do but, when I last wrote, to you Lee, with practically an essay in response to your challenges (on the Sunday, as promissed incidentally) it did not go through when I submitted it (as the blurb above the box warns may happen). I had written so much that I didn't have time to do it again and I almost lost the will to live! I have learned my lesson and will therefore launch a series of postings, so forgive me if continuity seems a little odd. I will do my best to be clear, if not always gramatical.

19. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58226 by Ash Roskell on July 24, 2007 at 4:15 am

Hello again LeeC, sorry I missed your much longer, & very well written (no patronising intended, honest) set of questions. I hadn't realised that there was another page. An entertaining read, if I cannot subscribe to the sentiment. Sadly I have not the time just now to give you the answers which your "tome" deserves as I must leave for London. However I promise to do my best upon my return this weekend (or Monday at the latest) which will also buy me some time to think ;)

Meanwhile, two points; 1) you will find the legal argument briefly addressed in my last posting. 2) I think you should look more closely at Karl Popper who developed the notion of "Disprovability" as he also noted that it was flawed himself.

Best wishes, Ash

20. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58220 by Ash Roskell on July 24, 2007 at 3:54 am

I must say, it's beginning to get a bit lonely out here (though I'm sure that comment will prompt a crack about having God to keep me company). Looking to the arguments in reverse order:

Hi Goldy, you should check the posts again. I mentioned athiest regimes, and the hell they have unleashed, in response to Nails' argument that religious regimes seemed to be the worst perpetrators of such atrocities. You have made, almost, the same point as I; that there are only people, when it comes to warmongering. However I would challenge the notion that ideas stand alone for their validity.

TO ALL: We often find in the history of ideas, not just their flaws or perfections (both of which are often overlooked) but a strong indication as to where they will lead. Indeed we find that we have often been there before. Cicero said that, without our histories we are, "as little children, knowing not from from whence we come or wither we go". We ignore the history of ideas at our peril. Darwin & Newton had to think "outside the box" & in ways that were inconceivable to their peers in order to form their theories. By learning from them we discover ways of moving beyond authodoxy & ways of thinking for ourselves. We have grown lazy in our approach to science in particular. We have to learn, not WHAT to think, but HOW TO THINK. That is why I read books, both old & new. Be suspiscious of those who encourage you to do otherwise.

History also teaches us that the "religion" of atheism is an anomily; both in the world today and more so in the past. I expect it will pass, like flares & CB radio, only taking a little longer to do so ;-)

Hi Bonzai, for your last posting, see the above paragraph.

With regard to lapsing into the 'religion as a cover for violence' argument, putting it rather simply, I know. I am dissapointed. I had come to expect higher thinking from you. I stand by the point that, in a world without religion, people will still find hypocracy, lies, zealousness, etc. There will still be suicide killings, atrocity & war faught in these ways.

Your legal argument interests me. I am afarid I don't, at the moment, have the link for this so please accept my apologies; but you could Google it easily enough. Professor Simon Greenleaf was the founding professor of the Faculty of Law at Harvard in the USA. He, as an atheist, looked into the very issues you raised about reliability of statements made by the disciples, the apostles (only one of whom was an eye witness)& their historical value, for which he took consultation from the best historical scholars of his day. His agenda was to disprove the hypothesis of the resurrection of Christ. By the end of his toil he concluded that the story was true & described it as, ". . . in my experience, the strongest legal case in history to this day." He died a Christian.

You & I could quibble over legal definitions,testability, etc. from now until Christmas & get nowhere. So I point you to this, a better mind than mine, more suited for the task. I would be interested in your thoughts. I hope you are prepared to look at the EVIDENCE you say you seek? By the way, Bonzai, you keep putting the phrase "eye witness" into my mouth (3 times). I never said it. I said "witness statements". I hope you can see that this is more than just a fine distinction.

You also ask, "how does God work?" That is too complex a question for me to answer fully here but I do not shrink from the question. For the benefit of Nails too who uses the allegation of a lack of clarity being used to hide falshoods, I would point you to two sections of scripture: from Matthew 10:13 on, in which the disciples ask Christ why he speeks in parables. He points out that some people will never be willing to listen, others will listen but with prejudice or a reluctance to give up their sins, some will listen & find God & there are others He describes. He explaines the mechanism by which this works using an analogy of grain, & He sums up by explaining that parables are a means of both illustrating the truth & providing the mind with something to contemplate, for further growth. I can tell you that a fire is hot & will burn you. But, if you knew nothing of fire, you may be tempted to put your hand in. If I first showed you the scars on my hand & explained how it was burned, you may not need an object lesson in order to believe. Also, in the context of my statement that, "God does not work that way", which was in answer to Nails' accusation that God was punishing him with his mother's illness. I point you to Revelation (the whole of it) or to Matthew 24. Nails claims to have read the Bible. So it should have been clear to him, from these passages & inumerable others, that God will judge no one on Earth, punish no one, until the day of judgement. In addition I should remind you both that God is love.

Hello Nails. I think many of your points have been answered in the above paragraphs. I apologise for making assumptions & writing a premature obituary on your mother (perhaps God's answer to you was "Yes & Amen"?). However I stand by the point that, in a forum such as this, it is probably wiser to stick to generality & specifics without going into the realm of the deeply personal & emotive about which no other individual can safely comment or have proper knowledge by which to argue.

"Ditto", is incorect, factually speaking, for reasons already explained.

If you have the time to read Dawkins, then you have the time to read history & the philosophers. Perhaps you should just come out & acknowledge that you don't want to?

Kind regards to all (even the abusive one) Ash

21. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58107 by Ash Roskell on July 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm

P.S. to LeeC
Please forgive my rather selfindulgent referrence to Stephen. I shall endeavour to be clearer in the event of any further dialogue. See you around, Ash

22. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58078 by Ash Roskell on July 23, 2007 at 10:08 am

Hi LeeC, I'm honestly not hedging but, in order to answer your question, I need to know what you would regard as evidence. If you ask me has anyone seen Jesus do a miracle, I would have to answer, "yes, look at the witness statements of the apostles, most of who'm did not change their statements in the face of torture & execution." On the other hand you may want a discussion about physics or metaphysics, history or politics? If you would expand on you question I would be happy to do my best to give a clear answer.
Well, Nails, yours is a familiar argument. I see you begin by raising the red herring of semantics once again. Forgive me if I don't play. As to your final recommendations; I'm not sure I would soberly recommend Christopher Hitchens to anybody (though I have read him), you forget that I have already said that I have read Dawkins (quite a fan actually), Steve Jones is a man with whom I often agree with regard to his evolution studies & have used his evidence amongst my own parishoners, &, having read Darwin, I ask you; are you honestly telling me you have read the whole of "Origin of Species"? You have made two incorrect assumptions about me and thereby rather clumsily revealed your hand. 1) You assume that I do not read literature with which I do not agree 2) You assume that I have not read the same books as you. Wrong both times. But now I know, by your own admission that you have not read a broad cross-section of literature which, no doubt, the head of your atheist church will have (that is not sarcasm by the way) & I also know, by your own admission, that you are not willing to look outside of the world in which you are comfortable. For my own part, I will give Mendel & Harris a look.
With regard to history, there is a huge difference between Hitler taking an interest in crackpot theories which made good propaganda and his believing in any religion (Recommend Mine Kampf, if you can cope with the tedium), or for that matter, the National Socialist Party having ANY religious doctrine whatever.
As for persecution, I simply think that blaming persecution on religious people alone shows a total lack of understanding of history. It is a popular and increasingly discredited argument; that's all. Read history or leave that side of the debate to those in the know.
As you bring up the death of your mother & feel it appropriate for discussion on such a site, I can say only this. You were not punished for anything; God does not work that way. You cannot say that she was not prevented from more suffering perhaps, but such speculations are mawkish at the best of times. I am sorry for your loss, but I could just as easily use the examples of the many deaths I have witnessed, as well as the others which have caused me suffering, in my arguments for faith. I do not think it wise or right to do so.
Regards, Ash

23. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell on July 22, 2007 at 1:05 am

Go on then, Nails, I'll give it one more shot. Really though, don't you think that sweeping generalisms and sarcasm are some sort of fig leaf for flimsey arguments? When you are placed in the context of all the other posts it is clear that your earlier "clan" comments were fixed squarely in the sea of love surrounding Dawkins. It is a sign of character not to back-peddle, but to own your views or admit a mistake.
As to growing bored with a book, or failing to understand its content; this is not a valid argument for invalidating the truth therein. It is, however, the most compelling argument for suggesting that the reader does not have any valid grounds for dismissing it, if he confesses that he does not understand it and has forgotten most of it.
But if you want to read some bad horror stories about atheistic ragimes, try Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Poll Pot and many more in all good stockists near you now. I mean, really! We could stack up all of the bodies in history into two piles; those killed in the name of religion and those killed in secular wars, and guess what you will find? Nearly all of those which were killed in the name of religion were actually killed for secular reasons, religion being very rarely the cause of war, though often the excuse. But you can't seriously believe that, in a world where there was no religion, there would be no war, or people lying about their reasons for going to war? As you say, perhaps you are naive, so what I suggest (in all good part) is that you study the practice of allowing your head & not your heart rule you in rational thought & debate, & take up a study of history. I recommend, Cicero, Plato & Socrates for the former & Barry Cunliffe & Simon Schama for the latter. Most of all, avoid aggression or sarcasm in debate; it demeans both the argument and the man. Forgive me, if I sound patronising, but I am very, very old & feel I have earned the right to lecture a little :)

24. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #57796 by Ash Roskell on July 21, 2007 at 4:47 am

Hello Nails, Don't worry it is OK not to understand, I didn't expect every body to grasp what I was saying. Perhaps you should take up drinking?
Hello Bozai, Glad to see that you atheists are not all a bunch of automatons. I think that the "clan" mentality is not something that Richard Dawkins would, himself, subscribe to; but I won't criticise someone who feels that there is safety in numbers. Though we Christians put much store in the notion of us all belonging to a "family", we are also aware that each man or woman (I will use what ever syntax I choose thank you, Nails,- it's always the "gang up" ones that like to dictate) is on their own particular journey in life. In both camps there are people who have un-thought-out views & those who are wise.
Hello LeeC, & for the benefit of Nails (if S/HE is really interested) my gag may have been oblique, but my referrence to Stephen was a comparrison between R. D. & Stephen the first Christian martyr in history; it's in the book of Acts. He was stoned to death. Saul (Paul) held the coats of the stoners. Give it a read sometime. You may become aware of the things that you claim to be rationally rejecting?
Regards to you all

25. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #57782 by Ash Roskell on July 21, 2007 at 2:09 am

Well, Mr. Dawkins, What an embarrassment of riches you have in your acolytes. Such praise! "I cried", says one, when s/he read your words. Another says s/he will have your words enscribed on his/her gravestone! (Which, by the way, I can guarantee s/he won't.) Most of them claim to "love" you! Not just what you say; but YOU! These empiricists, these rationalists, these higher-level thinkers have fallen in love with a man they have never met. Forgive me if my response to your work, though I like it very much, is slightly more level-headed than that to which you must by now be becomming accustomed. I suspect that this phenomenon is largely the result of the passions of the young. But BEWARE, Stephen - if I can call you by that name without blaspheming? - as such flushes of effusive feelings are often short lived. And then, when the first pangs of embarrassment at such emotional spillage begin to niggle within the reflective breasts of men (& women), there could be a banding together of back-sliders (as happened 2000 years ago). And even then, in order to assuage the shame of their youthful enthusiasms, your former followers may decide to nail you to something; possibly the doors of your own temple (which, I feel sure, will have been erected by this time) Just a thought. Have you ever done anything to discourage such sycophancy? It's not healthy, surely? Discuss.