Comments by clearthinker
1. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks
Comment #175459 by clearthinker on May 5, 2008 at 1:09 pm
This is the best and most stimulating article I have read on this website. Congratulations to Sam Harris. The question is what can be done about it?
2. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways
Comment #168289 by clearthinker on April 24, 2008 at 11:37 pm
The time for tolerance of religion has expired. I know intolerance is not the right thing, but I think it is inappropriate to show tolerances for those who teach intolerance.
Dragonfire this then means you should not be tolerated, after all you are teaching intolerance. Unless as an atheist you are free from this rule or from the rules of logic!
3. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #161189 by clearthinker on April 15, 2008 at 2:36 am
Rachel,
Thanks for your reasonable post. Just a few comment---
I think it is wrong to say that the theory of evolution inexorably leads to the Holocaust. There were many factors involved in the holocaust - not least the rejection of Christianity by the Nazis. To say that evolution simply leads to Nazism is too simplistic.
As regards your analogy - of course the lecturer concerned should not get the post. However there is a considerable difference between someone who denies germs being a lecturer in medicine, and someone who questions some aspects of evolution being a biology lecturer. I recall hearing even RD saying that it could be proved wrong or changed in a hundred years times. The medical lecturer would be causing harm to people - would the person who questioned evolution.
I know personally at least 12 lecturers or post doc biologists who do not buy into every aspect of evolution. Should they be fired? called idiots (as happened in one Uni I know?). My fear is that RD is seeking to bring the American culture wars over to Britain and once PZ Myers gets the Simonyi sinecure, this will continue. I dislike Christians who try to do the same thing. Keep your culture wars in the US. And let scientists get on with the science - without bringing either religion or atheist philosophy into it.
4. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #161161 by clearthinker on April 15, 2008 at 1:30 am
I am refraining from engaging in posted conversations with him as he exhibits the worst characteristics of fundamentalists the world over; a refusal to consider any point of view or evidence that contradicts the fiercely-held ignorance in his head. t
Thanks Allan. As an example of a self-contradictory statement this is a classic!
A refusal to consider any point of view or evidence sums up neatly your post and your position. I post a great deal of information on the question of this thread and you respond by telling PZ 'shut your ears, eyes and mouth'. I have noticed this about a number of the fundamentalists on this site. You can't answer the arguments so you resort to personal insult (odious, lying and nasty ideas - without of course offering any evidence) and you then advise people not to respond. Perhaps Allan you will not engage in the conversation because you actually have nothing to say.
Meanwhile if you can manage to do this - here is a simple challenge for you. You stated that my post above was odious, lying and nasty. Perhaps you could evidence that by telling us which part is a lie. The other two characteristics are just emotive terms that mean you do not like it. They are meaningless - and to be honest there is nothing rational that one can say to someone who screams in such a childish manner ' I don;t like it ..it must be nasty'. However you have said that it is a lie - so please tell us where these lies are, in the post above. Will I hold my breath?
5. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
Comment #161151 by clearthinker on April 15, 2008 at 12:42 am
Dear PZ,
There is a great deal of confusion about the link between Nazism and Darwinism and I'm afraid that your brief blog does nothing to help.
Firstly you actually miss the point of Expelled. Its major charge is that there are scientists in academia who are being 'expelled' or discriminated against because they dare to question some aspects of Darwinism (the hint is in the title of the film). If this accusation is false then that is the 'falsehood at the heart of expelled'. If the accusation is correct then it is profoundly disturbing. Has evolution moved from being science to being a philosophical/political position? Are evolutionists so doctrinaire that anyone who dares question is discriminated against? Perhaps the makers of Expelled are making it all up - but I am intrigued that this website and others have gone into emotive hyperdrive - no less than seven articles on the film. Anyway perhaps someone could answer the main accusation of the film. I would not have believed it until I started getting letters and e-mails from scientists who requested that I do not use their name because they feared for their careers and their jobs.
Anyway onto the secondary issue you raise. The question of the link between Darwinism and Nazism. A few points.
1) I am surprised that this is the area you get so upset about. What about the link betwen Stalinism and Darwinism? When Stalin was 13 he read the Origin of the Species. He was so excited about it that he read it all night. He later said to his friends "God's not unjust, he doesn't actually exist. We've been deceived. If God existed, he'd have made the world more just". When his shocked friends asked him how he could say such a thing he replied 'I'll lend you a book and you will see'. (See Young Stalin - p. 40 by Montefiore)
2) It is very simplistic to claim that the situation is either that there is a direct causal link between Hitler and Darwinism, or there is no link at all. You need to look at what Hitler believed, the context in which he operated and whether or not Darwinism contributed to that.
3) Your article actually is neutral about whether Darwinism was an influence upon Hitler or not. You are not actually engaging with the issue at all.
4) I find it intriguing that many atheists behave like some religious fundamentalists who start off with the premise and then desperately hold on to any 'evidence' they can google. So after gleaning through various atheist websites we end up with statements such as 'Hitler was a Catholic', Mein Kampf spoke about Christ, The Vatican signed a Concordat etc. None of which takes into account context and all of which ignroes the contrary evidence.
Perhaps it would be better to get the facts first before we do the analysis.
1) As far as we know Hitler never claimed to be an atheist.
2) Hitler was in no sense a Christian. He never attended church, he despised the church and regarded it as a threat to his aims.
3) Hitler loathed Jesus Christ as being the 'eternal Jew'.
4) Hitler was a religious person in that he wanted to create his own cult of the Thousand Year Reich, complete with its buildings, rituals and leaders.
5) Hitler believed in evolution. He believed that Darwinism showed that the strong survive and the weak are removed. He believed that was Nature and if his religion was anything it was a belief in Nature.
6) Hitler operated in a culture which had in many areas rejected traditional Christianity - and had done so because of perceived advances in science and human understanding. That is why support for Hitler was strongest amongst scientists and academics and in the German Universities.
7) Darwinian science (or a misunderstanding or misapplication of it) was combined with the philosophy of Nietzsche and resulted in a more conducive environment for Nazism to flourish.
8) It is clear that the vast majority - if not all - of the senior Nazis were not in any sense committed Christians. Leading figures such as Rosenberg and Goring were vehemently anti-Christian. Rosenberg was the primary influence on Mein Kampf.
9) This is not just true for the senior Nazis but the vast majority of committed Nazis. In a 1942 survey of captured Nazi airmen, when asked what their religion was - 50% said nature, 40% Hitler and 10% said they were atheists.
10) In the last free election before Hitler established his dictatorship the majority of people in Germany voted for parties that were either overtly atheistic (the KPD - communist party) or anti-Christian (the Nazis and the Anarchists).
From the above and many other facts it is clear that one cannot simply just say that atheism necessarily leads to Nazism. However it is doubtful whether the Nazis would ever have come to power if it were not for the general ethos and philosophy of German society. The First World War, the Versailles treaty, the hyper inflation of the 1920's, the incipient anti-semitism of much of German society when combined with the God is dead philosophy of Nietzsche and the implications of Darwinism ('Might is right, the weak are destroyed, the strong survive etc) were a potent soil in which the Nazi ideology flourished. The fact that the church had been severely weakened by the undermining of the BIble through the mainly German Higher Criticism and the acceptance of a weak liberal cultural Christianity meant that there was little chance of it preventing the Nazi disaster.
I am not saying that all atheism leads to such disasters as Nazism. Although I do work on the maxim that you shall know them by their fruits. So far the only societies in the world that have claimed to be atheist have not been an inspiring example.
6. Fleabytes
Comment #156153 by clearthinker on April 7, 2008 at 1:03 am
This is my final, final post...
Max D - you just don't get it. It is not that the posts were removed - it is that someone from RD.net has written to my publisher stating that they never existed and that this proves me to be a liar.
Allan W - I forgot to put this in my summary. What a bunch of self -righteous moralistic legalists you are! I wrote this at 6 am Monday morning - not the Sunday. But even if I did what difference would that make.
Adieu...
7. Pastor attacks scientist's talk
Comment #156139 by clearthinker on April 7, 2008 at 12:22 am
Again I do not want to get involved in yet another thread which is mainly abusive. However for the record I did not contact the BBC - they contacted me. And I stand by my comments and observations.
I also understand that the event went very well and that in particular Paula did a good job. One atheist friend told me that he was disappointed that RD was not a great speaker - even though he agree with what he said. She also said that the protesters looked stupid.
I will leave you to your ridicule. By the way the challenge still stands - you keep accusing me of lying - can you demonstrate one lie?
8. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist
Comment #156137 by clearthinker on April 7, 2008 at 12:15 am
Again - I do not wish to get involved with this thread but just a couple of corrections.
The Free Church of Scotland had nothing to do with the 'protests' outside Eden Court. Mr Gillies is not one of ours. To protest at such an event is just stupid. Dawkins is perfectly entitled to come and speak.
The Free Church of Scotland is not YEC. In fact we have been OEC from before Darwin!
And yes - Ken Ham, and the protesters outside Eden Court, are a gift to RD.
By the way I heard that the event went really well and that Paula did a great job - congratulations.
9. Dawkins warns of human extinction
Comment #156136 by clearthinker on April 7, 2008 at 12:09 am
Quetz - no 154. Your summary is fair and accurate...
10. Fleabytes
Comment #156135 by clearthinker on April 7, 2008 at 12:00 am
Summary of this thread
This is my final post on this thread. It has been an interesting if somewhat disturbing and depressing experience. A few final thoughts.
I knew nothing of this until I was e-mailed by an atheist who mocked me for not replying and who accused me of lying about the quotes in my book. When I returned and read Paula's review I refused to respond until I was unbanned. Eventually after RD gave an assurance that I was unbanned I began to respond to Paula.
In terms of the review itself it is very interesting that Paula has not interacted with any of the criticisms of her review. The reason for that is two fold - firstly the purpose of her review is not interaction but rather it is intended to be a hatchet job to reassure the faithful, and secondly her review is not really a review at all - it is a selection of things she does not like. She ignores large chunks of each chapter, misrepresents what she does discuss and seems to have only one purpose - attack me and defend RD. Of course to those who WANT to believe (indeed almost have to believe) that I am a liar/idiot/hypocrite, Paula's 'review' is like music to their ears. But only to the faithful. I am more than happy to send people to Paula's 'review' - not because it commends my book but rather because it is so bad that all I need to do is get people to read both and they can work it out for themselves.
As regards the discussion that has also been a revelation. It seems that the vast majority of RD Net think that not being able to answer an argument is justification for mockery and abuse. When that does not work you seem to want to continually reassure yourselves how wonderful you all are, then seek to swamp any argument with trivia, and then you have another form of self defence - which you seem to have as some kind of group mentality - accuse those who disagree with you of lying.
This is summed up by someone posting from RichardDawkins.net on my publishers website - this is what they said "David Robertson is a liar and pretty much everything he says on the Richard Dawkins website simply isn't true. He just makes stuff up as he goes along. For example he simply made up all the reviews on the back of his book and we proved to him that nobody on Richarddawkins.net said his book was intelligent. Just look at all his posts (http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,25843) and you'll see how he lies in pretty much everything he says. His book gets demolished here (http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page149#153728) I wouldn't read this book if you paid me to."
It is both the breathtaking ignorance and chutzpah of this post which stands out. If this did come from RD.net then of all people they should know that the reason these posts are not there is that over 300 were removed by RD.net - including all the ones that my publisher cited on the cover. When my publisher got this e-mail they burst out laughing - because they had seen the posts themselves on RD.net. The accusation of liar is made continually and yet not one of you has been able to substaniate it - or to demonstrate one single lie.
Mind you another post on my publishers website is also a great illustration of how many (not all) of you guys work. "Whilst I haven't read the book myself I've been told by others that it isn't any good. As he has apparently read the God Delusion and is still a Christian he must have either misunderstood Dawkin's arguments or be very stupid. The guy who wrote it is a troll over at Dawkin's website and don't take him seriously and i'd advise others to do the same." That sums up the general ethos here. Anyone who reads the God Delusion and is not converted by it is either ignorant or stupid! And you shouldn't read the book because of what you have been told by others or you may be giving money to the 'the enemy'. It is the confidence and insecurity of the fundamentalist which shines through.
Other 'highlights' in this thread - include the 'death threat' and the fact that the person who objected to it removed his objection in case it offended his fellow atheists; RD's massive intellectual contribution (Robertson is unchristian, mean a fruitcake etc) which was met by the usual swooning of the sycophants (ooh - how wonderful the way Oxford professors argue!); whether I am mentally ill or just mean; Pathfinders hilarious spoof which won him £500 after he bet his partner that atheists could be as fanatical, unreasonable fundamentalists as any religious person; and MPhils reasonable and intelligent contributions.
I can't promise never to return to this website but I will not be returning to this thread. If this is the best that RD.net has to offer in terms of dealing with my book, then I don't really have much to fear. Perhaps when you do a serious review (rather than a reassure the believers) you could let me know.
Meanwhile I do continue to pray for you all. That somehow you would wake up to what is all around you and have your minds opened to the truth.
11. Fleabytes
Comment #156134 by clearthinker on April 6, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Einstein
7410 - Steve
However, if David considers Einstein an expert on religious matters, that raises the slight problem for David that Einstein thought theism nonsense.
So, David. You seem to have a choice here. You either accept that Einstein was wrong about his pantheism, or you accept that Einstein was right about Christianity being nonsense.
No. That is not the choice. I accept that Einstein was not a theist in that he did not believe in a personal God. I also accept that he thought Christianity nonsense. My faith does not rest on Einstein. I also accept that Einstein knew what he was saying when he stated that he was not a pantheist and that he disliked atheists using him for propaganda. I don't need to reinterpret what Einstein said. And I don't need to speculate that he 'kow-towed' to the theists. It is incredible that you can make such statements without ANY evidence - just because you want it to be so.
7509
I've invited you twice now to provide links. Why have you not? I'm not going to ask my vile fellow atheists to do your work for you. /blockquote>
No - But I do expect you to understand that to comment on something without reading it, is a bit silly. GIven that may people here have commented on my letters to Dawkins and that they all managed to find them on the Free Church website - and the link has been posted several times - I kind of figured you might have the intelligence to work it out for yourself. Anyway since you are clearly having difficulties - try www.freechurch.org and go to Todays Issues (big clue- try the ones with Dawkins Letters in them!).
12. Fleabytes
Comment #156132 by clearthinker on April 6, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Robertson is a Liar
7396 - Roland
And can't stop lying, distorting, spinning and misquoting, as pointed out so many times here.
Yes - it is pointed out many times. And every time it is pointed out I ask for evidence. And either there is complete silence or the 'evidence' says nothing of the sort. I am still waiting for the evidence but I guess evidence and proof does not really bother the fundamentalist believer too much? Hang on - I spoke too soon. Here comes Scottish Geologist with the evidence....
739 7 - This is it?! This is your evidence?! That in a piece written six years ago I commented on watching England v's Denmark whilst drinking Carlsberg and eating a Danish. And then several weeks later I said 'Never touch the stuff' when accused of drinking too many Carlsbergs. This 'disturbed' Scottish geologist (poor sensitive soul). Well what can we learn from this incredible incident. Firstly Scottish geologist cannot think of anything on this site where I have lied etc or surely he would have shown us it. Secondly his standards of evidence are somewhat skewed (he refers to the 'adulterous' professor, although no evidence was provided for that accusation). Thirdly he has had a humour by pass. And fourthly he is completely unacquainted with literary styles - irony and sarcasm clearly pass him by. Fifthly he seems to be obcessed with me. All of these worrying traits are the hallmark of the fundamentalist. You are really scraping the barrel if this is the only evidence you can come up with.
7398 - Philip
Didn't you read what Richard said about you after you LIED about Paula's article and made some decidedly offensive remarks that prompted the above response?
Poor Philip. You too are really scraping the barrel. I did not lie about Paula's article. Even Richard did not call me a liar. You really do need to move away from your rather simplistic use of language - and learn the distinction between lying, being mistaken and being wrong. Still waiting for you to tell me one of these many lies I have told (by the way - a small hint - just because you disagree with something I say or don't like it - that does not make it a lie).
7420 - Forestmist
There are people on here who have called you a liar, but there are also others who have not. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that, as your comments above make it seem as if everyone on here is nasty.
Yes - you are right. Of course. Not everyone does call me a liar. And I do not want to tar everyone with the same brush. Mind you it would help if other people (even or especially those who do not agree with me) correct their fellow atheists when they engage in this type of behaviour. Some kind of self policing might help your cause a whole lot more.
7423 - Allan W
He comments on a post of mine from looooong ago and merely to ask a question; in fact he projects my answer (quite incorrectly) while also ignoring my much more recent post showing how he lied.
I could not find Alan's post on this thread and lo and behold it does not exist. Little wonder that I did not reply here. It comes from no 342 on the Beware the Believers thread - where Allan states in his unthinking way
No, Robertson, 'don't upset the (non) believers or you will be expelled' is yet another example of deliberate falsehood; when will you extract your head from your rectum? The sheer fact you can post the message negates its content. You lie as regularly as you breathe.
Even there he gets it wrong. The point I was making is that the Beware the Believers video is supporting the 'Expelled' line. That is not a 'lie'. How does this show how I lied'?!
7437 - Star
David you seem to respond to the postings full of vague accusations without proof frequently; and rightly so. I wonder why many of the posts that actually require a response, from people such as eepist or mphil, never are addressed by you? I do not blame you for responding to all the attacking and unsubstantial posts (they're very easy to rebut or question) but please, if you'd be so kind, address the actual posts that would actually make this conversation worth while and not a 2 sided bash fest.
I try to. But I really do not have the time to go into detail with them all. However I have tried to respond to every serious point. In fact for my last posts I have divided them into serious/David is a liar and Einstein.
13. Fleabytes
Comment #156131 by clearthinker on April 6, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Finally this ends....I am going to end by having a quick go through the posts since I was last on here and then perhaps a general reflection on this thread.
Serious Points
7399 - Q
Could it also be because we do not yet know how life got started from non-life?
Thanks for letting me know that. It is what I thought.
7401 - Roland
This Golden rule was discussed here so many times and you know very well what it is.
So why do I have to repeat myself and other posters here all over again. Some theist even re-discovered it in the Bible and claimed the Golden Rule to be invented from Jesus.
Reciprocal altruism can be found all over the animal kingdom: don't do to others what you don't want them, do unto yourself. And this was also investigated so many times in game theory.
I love this. What fantastic proof of the fantasy world that some atheist live in. Disney and Dawkins get it together. The Golden Rule is 'do unto others as you would have them do to you. And this is found all over the animal kingdom. So the next time a seal takes a bite out of a salmon, a lion attacks a young deer, or a bird swipes up a worm - I must think this is the Golden Rule at work! Hilarious stuff!
And I notice that you still could not tell us what 'basic human rights' are, where they come from and if they are absolute.
7404
The idea originated with me: I was keen to hear him speak in Inverness so asked UHI if they would be interested in having him as one of their public lecturers if it were possible to get him. UHI, understandably enough, leapt at the chance, so at that point I asked Richard if he would be willing to consider an invitation.
Thanks for letting me know that Paula. I kind of figured that the invitation did not come from UHI. By the way I heard that the event went very well and that you did a good job.
7415 - MPhil
All that is needed are commonly shared goals - from these, moral values can be derived and judgements are hence intersubjectively justified.
Thank you for a very interesting post. I have always wondered why atheists, including RD, are not prepared to argue for objective metaphysical values. Of course your commonly shared goals might be difficult to agree on. And I still question how you can have morality at all, without an absolute from which to derive it.
7471
My point about the inconsistencies we've previously discussed was that they are only problematic if one is trying to cling on to the idea that the Gospels provide a truthful and authentic account of the life of Christ. If one takes the view that "the story was exaggerated wildly by overly enthusiastic 'witnesses'" then the problems disappear. I've put this point to you, in different ways sometimes 'softening' the language, about four or five times now. I'm finding it hard to grant you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you aren't deliberately avoiding answering it
Not avoiding it. I just answered your questions. Personally I have studied the Gospels for the past 20 years in the original Greek, in the light of much scholarship and have yet to find a single inconsistency within it.
By the way - speaking of JW's. I once knocked on a door and said I was from the local Church. The woman who answered said 'no thanks, I'm a JW'. To which I responded, \Revenge!'. She did not see the funny side....
14. Fleabytes
Comment #156130 by clearthinker on April 6, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Ok - you wanted proof of lying. Here it is. Plain and simple in black and white. The person from RD net (he/she sign themselves as richarddawkins.net) whom my publisher is responding to has posted on their website that almost everything I say on RD net is a lie and that the proof of this is that the quotes on the back of my book from RD net have been proven to be false - they do not exist. (by the way strange how Paula does not mention this context - strange but par for the course).
Unfortunately for the rd.net poster - my publisher saw the quotes themselves, as did many others. I kept a record of them (date and time etc) and still have them. The reason they do not appear on RD.net now is that they, together with over 300 posts, were removed. One assumes that rd.net knows this. At best this is an example of ignorance being used to accuse someone of lying - at worst it is just simply falsehood.
Of course you are all so wedded to your beliefs that this does not matter. You have all the evidence placed before you but I am sure you can somehow still manage to accuse me of lying. Do you have any idea how desperate and pathetic this makes you look?
15. Fleabytes
Comment #153817 by clearthinker on April 2, 2008 at 5:59 am
hum, Robertson is evasive again.
He comments on a post of mine from looooong ago and merely to ask a question; in fact he projects my answer (quite incorrectly) while also ignoring my much more recent post showing how he lied.
Situation normal then. BTW what is this I hear about a cheque? xt
Sorry Alan, could you please let me know your 'much more recent post showing' that I lied?
16. Fleabytes
Comment #153733 by clearthinker on April 2, 2008 at 12:34 am
David you ARE a liar, you have been very deceptive, as has been pointed out to you several times!
Philip. You are doing it again. You just keep repeating the same thing without any evidence. I already answered your earlier point and all you can do is repeat the mantra - David is a liar. I know its a bit boring and repetitive but do you think you could break out of the cycle and actually give us some evidence or example of where I have lied? After all everything is written down - it should not be too difficult.
And if asking you to prove your statement that I am a liar, is treating you like crap then yes - I'm sorry - I have to plead guilty. In my world accusing people of lying without providing evidence is treating people like crap. And then accusing them of treating people like crap because they ask for evidence is just bizarre....
17. Fleabytes
Comment #153730 by clearthinker on April 2, 2008 at 12:30 am
Roland F -
What is society? Look up Wiki !
enough said...
Who determines what is right and wrong?
The golden rule of the animal kingdom (which includes homo sapiens), International human rights declarations (as long they are not destroyed from religious fundamentalist), the constitution and derived laws of a free secular countryt
Not an answer - just a wish list. Can you tell us what this 'golden rule of the animal kingdom is' (the real one - not the Disney/Wiki one). Can you tell us where International human rights declarations come from (and which ones should be accepted)? And can you tell us what the laws are derived from in a 'free secular country'? Is freedom an absolute?
In other words - can you answer the question without resorting to fairy tales?
18. Fleabytes
Comment #153728 by clearthinker on April 2, 2008 at 12:24 am
Einstein -
Steve - 6626 -
I hope you realise that whether or not he disliked how people quoted him has no relevance to what his belief was in relation to the existence of God. and 6650 No. The question is what Einstein was, NOT what he said he was/blockquote>
One of my favourite quotes ever on this site. Such overwhelming arrogance. What Einstein said he was is not the question - what we say he was is what matters!
Alan 6779 - Incredible that you manage to write so much without having read the material you are commenting on! Even by the standards of FA that takes some doing. You don't even know where my letters are - plenty people here can tell you! Perhaps next time before you accuse people of lying you could actually read what they have said.Again, I think that he was well aware that, as a public figure, he had to kow-tow to the prevailing theistic mindset of much of Western society.
Of course. Einstein was a coward who kow-towed. Yep - that fits his profile - if you live in atheist fantasy land! Remember the golden rule according to Steve, is that it does not matter what Einstein said he was, it matters what we say he was. So now he is a closet atheist/pantheist who was just too scared to come out. If only the 'A' campaign had been around then to enlighten him!
Alan F 7333Well, no surprise, it looks like David Robertson has bowed out of our discussion of how he misrepresented Dawkin's use of Einstein in his book that Paula reviewed
No. Wrong again. I already answered your comments. see 6645 - And suggested that you actually read the things you are commenting on. It usually helps. Of course it won't make any difference to you because you have already decided the outcome.
19. Fleabytes
Comment #153727 by clearthinker on April 2, 2008 at 12:23 am
Robertson is an evil liar...
Steve - 6784
I have seen David's tactics many, many times. It is "recursive arguing". If you can't deal with large issues, put them aside, go into into a smaller side issue. If you can't deal with that, go into yet a smaller issue and so on. The point is that by eventually finding something where you can claim victory, you can attempt to extrapolate this victory all the way back to a large issue.
Philip - 6662 - Sorry you keep repeating yourself. I have showed you from TGD where Dawkins directly equates religion and child sexual abuse. Because you don't want to believe it, does not make it a lie. In fact here is a simple test for you. If what I say is untrue then let RD sue me - because you are right it would be a dreadful thing to say. I wonder who said the following "horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place".
Again the irony is fantastic. You accuse me of 'recursive arguing' in the context of Alan's accusation that I was lying about Einstein. All I did was answer his question - prove him wrong (not difficult since he was commenting about things he had not even read) - and now you accuse me because I answer what he asked. The irony is that this thread and Paula's review is full of recursive arguing. You cannot handle the wider issues and the bigger arguments so other things are brought in - which is why we get the Pope, obscure readings of the Bible, The Free Church and my schizophrenia. Brilliant stuff. Glad to see you are keeping up the tradition, Steve!
6860 Dr Benway
Have you ever been robbed? Raped? Beaten? Some have. Such experiences can strip you of your capacity to tolerate certain abuses. That's just the way it is.
So you equate those who believe in God with those who steal, rape and use violence? Little wonder that you use such emotive and irrational language.
6888 - Benway
Dawkins has demonstrated that he's not particularly good at making character judgments. He's been suckered more than once. For this reason, we can't let the wee flea near him.
So now you want to protect your hero from me? Can he not look after himself?
Nice people can be more dangerous than any hot-headed bloke who throws a punch without thinking.
So now I am nice? I thought I was a nasty, mean-spirited troll. Can you make your mind up? I just don;t know which persona to adopt.
6997 - Incredulous
I'm disappointed that clearthinker is still afforded the respect of responses from us. I'm convinced that, like a lot of theists, his aim is simply to win out attention and therefore engage us in his vacuous games. t
Indeed. But why then post this at all. Looks like it got under the radar. And guess what - I have no desire to have your attention. Can you think of a possible reason why I would want it? Do you really think my life is that empty?!
7345 - Q
I think we should call for balance by having an atheist speak at every one of David Robertson's church services. If that didn't happen, it would be as if people were just going there to hear him give only ONE side of the debate. And that would be wrong, of course.
If I were to be invited to speak at a public university and have it paid for out of tax payers money then yes - the opposite side should be put forward. And I am more than happy for atheists to come to our church services and to engage in discussion. We have that quite often.
Bonzai - 7350
I don't like gossiping about people but sometimes I just can't help it. I read the messages by Robertson, I come to the conclusion that the problem with the man is not even so much in what he believes, the guy is just an asshole. There are fundamentalists like revcort who believe in more whacky ideas but they come across as nicer and more honest people.
I guess I have to take back my earlier comment about you being the voice of reason. Why do I keep getting things wrong?! I know - its because I'm an asshole. If only I could develop such wit and wisdom.
7375
Yes, I've read it! I'd already heard from UHI that the BBC were pursuing a story along these lines, and there was only ever going to be one way it would have originated. So no surprises of any kind whatsoever.
Hi Paula. Glad you are feeling better. Sorry that you are wrong here again. The story did not originate with me. The BBC phoned me up and asked if I had anything to say about RD coming to UHI. I said that they could invite who they wanted but that I did not like the format (and I did not lie about this - I know it is UHI's format) and I questioned whether he was coming to give a science lecture or as an atheist evangelist. Given that it is the latter I suggested that it would have been more appropriate to allow a different point of view and format. By the way UHI told me that they had been asked to have RD and that the format was not theirs but agreed by negotiation - a negogiation they were quite happy with. Anyway hope it goes well for you today.
20. Fleabytes
Comment #153726 by clearthinker on April 2, 2008 at 12:22 am
Once again I will post this in three sections - posts relating to the subject, Einstein and Robertson is an evil liar.
Bonzai 6677
I take it for granted that it is fiction
Enough said.
6809 - Mixmaster
But all of these arguments may seem inconsequential if one takes the view, as I do, that the narratives they contain, whilst possibly having some basis in truth, are not accurate accounts of real, historical events.
Which then begs the question - if you have already made your mind up why did you bother asking about these 'inconsequential' things? But at least I can thank you for your honesty.
6829 - Pathfinder
The wager was: on my side - Atheists are as dogmatic and intolerant as the worst Christian fundamenralists we know; on his, not the case. I am 500 euros the richer. Thank YOU
Brilliant! Enjoy your beer. Your bet was a cert though. The funny thing is that even having been taken to the cleaners by you and proved to be as dogmatic and intolerant as any religious fundies, the fundamentalists here still don't get it. They just carryon with their vitriol and 'everyone is stupid except us' approach. Thanks for giving us a good laugh. By the way have you seen the fuss over the 'Dawkins Rap'. It's hilarious - a rap about RD, Myers etc creating a machine which expels scientists who do not agree with Darwinianism. It is very funny and very well made and very clever. But in the fundamentalist atheist mindset - creationists cannot be funny or clever and therefore it must be a parody and really on 'our side'. And notice the obcession with 'sides'. RD's only concern was 'whose side is this on'? And they wonder why they are called fundamentalists!
6849 - Alan W
The Enlightenment occurred more than two centuries ago and in vast areas of the earth religion still dominates societal structures and mores. The 'softly softly be nice and they'll come around' approach has been tried for all of this time. I for one agree with others that a more robust approach on occasions may be worth a try.
And this more robust approach would be? Would it be more 'robust' than the enlightened approach of the French Revolution, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot? How else could we eradicate the virus of religion?
6907 - Styrer
Solipsistically, I venture to repeat my own question of you, you tricky little puppy: why do you insist on perceiving metaphorical significance of your god's story as the reality of that god?
What do you mean? I will answer the question when I understand it. Please explain.
7029 Bonzai
I will stay away from this mode of argument since I am not a theologian, it is better just ask questions and let your opponent tell you what he actually believes and take the debate from there.
Bonzai - you are the voice of reason in this 'clear thinking oasis'!
7046 - Frankus
What is the theist response, not to specific questions, but the fact that there are so many questions?
Because the world ain't that simple and cannot be reduced to a fundamentalist philosophy.
7387
Now for some good news: I convince a couple of my Geologist friends to read "The god delusion" , and both have seen the light come over to our side. YES!! jcw
Another conversion. Hallelujah!
7395
Look at that table next to you. If you wait a trillion years, do you really think that table will come to life? Of course not! Therefore God exists. And Jesus too.[/sarcasm]
Yes - I understand the ridicule. And you all make it frequently. Yet a long time ago I asked you to explain how life comes from non life. Apart from falling about laughing - no one explained. If the question is so simple then here is a way for you to make a $1 million. The Origin of Life Foundation is offering a million dollar prize through the Gene Emergence Project. The GEP aims to discover the origin of the gentic instructions of DNA. Have a look at www.lifeorigin.org Are you up for the challenge?
21. Fleabytes
Comment #153714 by clearthinker on April 1, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Finally we come on to Paula's review of the last letter - and like the rest of her review - although there are a lot of words there is not really much substance. The basic position is that Paula does not like it and that she is an atheist.
Once again Paula, like many of her fellow believers, accuses me of 'distorting TGD. Once again she provides no evidence for that. I guess she is working on the basis of if you keep repeating the mantra you will feel reassured in your faith.
A good example of how Paula works is the way she cites my list of books. It is not what she says that matters - it is what she leaves out. By citing only 'evangelical' books she gives the impression that this is what I was doing - she 'forgets to mention that I include Gould, Steve Jones, Steven Hawking, Matt Ridley, Paul Davies etc. The irony is that she complains unjustly about me doing the very thing she does here.
Can you imagine anyone regarding a film like Crash as in anyway representative of real life?
um - yes. Unless you are blinded by the atheist faith. Racism, violence, slave trading in the 21st century, are all real parts of real life. Only in the delusional fantasy world of the fundamentalist atheist (where things are basically good and can 'only get better') would that be questioned!
Which begs the question: if it was TGD that had saddened him and convinced him that Dawkins was the most depressing atheist he'd ever read, why the need to quote from a different book altogether?
This is meant to be a serious review? Is Paul really that desperate to score points that she has to resort to this level of banality? Most people can work out that TGD is an expression of Dawkins views about God, the Universe et al. Quoting what he says elsewhere is perfectly reasonable - he does so himself. After all as Terry Eagleton points out - the most cited person in TGD apart from God, is Dawkins himself.
There follows a statement of such spectacular malevolence that it may well take your breath away: "I have no doubt that if atheist philosophy gets an ever-increasing grip on Europe or the USA then we are really heading for another Dark Age."
Once again another statement laden with emotive language and once again no substance. Paula basically says 'this cannot be true. I won't believe its true, therefore it is self-evidently not true'. There is no pretence of looking fr evidence. The statement just does not fit with her atheist beliefs and so it must de facto be false.
When you see the whole of life as a battleground between God and Satan, then no atrocity committed in the fight against Satan can be deemed too atrocious to contemplate.
And the desperation continues to shine through! Nowhere in the course of my letters have I either said or hinted this - indeed I would explicitly condemn such a ludicrous notion. But that does not stop Paula stating it as 'fact' and it will not stop her fellow believers from accepting it as 'fact'.
though I would suggest that it's only someone who has been immersed in Bible teachings all their life who would ever think that evil is the biggest question anyway.
Why? Can you think of a bigger question?
And I love your section on Jesus Christ. You are so desperate to find something to criticise that you are reduced to saying you would not employ him as a salesman or an ambassador. Almost as hilarious as RD's view that he did not have good family values and was unkind to his mother!
The universe is as it is, regardless of what he believes, and there is simply nothing to support the view that there is any kind of supernatural being behind it. Nothing.
And we all bow down and say Amen - this is the way it is. But I agree that the universe is the way it is - regardless of whatever you or I believe. Your belief (for that is what it is - you have no evidence for it and willfully shut your eyes to evidence against it) does not change either the existence of God nor the nature of the universe.
The rest of us, however, can and do delight in the knowledge that we can use our limited lifespans to be with people we love, to learn, to grow in every sense of the word, to enquire, to achieve, to give, to share, to celebrate, to encourage, to nurture, to make a contribution to society and â€" if we are fortunate â€" help to make it a better place. Why would I or anyone else swap the joy and adventure of such a life for a Calvinist obsession with evil that sees every human as vile?
Lots of questions here. How can you enquire when you have so limited your mind to the possibilities? How can you enquire when you have already pre-determined the answer? What is society? What about people you don't love? What is achievement? Who determines what is right and wrong?
And if you want to enquire, why do you deliberately and distort the views of those you disagree with. We see every human being as made in the image of God, every human life as precious, every human life as infinitely valuable. And we do see every human being as having that image polluted and perverted. The facts bear these things out. On the other hand you have this rather quaint Western middle class notion of the innate goodness of human beings (except of course those 'deluded' by religion) and well, you just KNOW you are right. You have to be right. You must be right. Oh, and in case anyone dares to disagree - you are right.
I'm afraid that having looked through the whole of your review I can only summarise by saying 'nice try' but you will need to do a whole lot better. Next time a little bit more honesty and substance would help your cause. Meanwhile I am more than happy to direct anyone to read your review. If that is the best RD can come up with - then there is nothing to fear.
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin.
Comment #152389 by clearthinker on March 30, 2008 at 11:12 pm
always, when given the choice between arguing for a position with evidence to support it and a position that he thinks might upset people the Reverent Robertson (aka Clearthinker ) opts for the latter.
Somehow I find this comment fits in very well with the video - don't upset the (non) believers or you will be expelled!
Another 'evidence' that the video is anti-atheist (or at lest anti-the claim that science=atheism) is that the machine is from the movie - the Incredibles. It is mean and nasty. It is also hung with a dollar sign.
The trouble is that the movie is so well done, and the song expresses the sentiments of so many of the people here, that people feel it MUST be on 'our' side. Its a mickey take and not even that subtle!
Comment #152203 by clearthinker on March 30, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Richard,
You were quite right to be suspicious of it. It is a complete mickey take. It begins with a soviet style propoganda - moves on to you saying you are smarter than other people because you are a scientist, and then does the 'Expelled' thing. The song IS satire, but the context in which it is sung shows clearly that it is taking the mick and criticising the arrogance of the New Atheist movement.
The only reason that some think otherwise is that it is very well made, funny and intelligent. And of course it is de facto the case that 'creationists' are ignorant and unfunny. Therefore it must have been one of 'our' guys.
Of course the delight of postmodernism is that you can make anything mean what you want it to mean - so that an animation which is clearly taking the mick is in actual fact seen as 'ironic' and therefore is actually on 'our' side. But either way your side loses. It is either a brilliantly made satire or if the 'song' was meant to be serious then it allows those of us who do not agree to point out the nonsense and intolerance within it.
On the other hand it could be a double, or is that a triple, bluff? And I could have got it all wrong. On a modernist take, its straightforward. Postmodernist means that you make make it mean whatever you want it too!
Comment #151886 by clearthinker on March 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Personally I thought it was hilarious! As for what it means - the 'fish' sign should be a big clue!
Comment #151545 by clearthinker on March 29, 2008 at 12:47 am
Thanks Josh for an interesting review - I have not seen the film yet but gather from interviews and the title that the major premise of the film is that those academics who question Darwinism or even hint at promoting ID are 'expelled' from the academic community. In all the reviews of the film, including this one, no-one seems to have addressed this question. Is questioning Darwinism or advocating ID the unforgiveable sin which will result in you either losing your job or not getting tenure? Have people been expelled for this? And if so does the New Atheism support expelling people on these grounds?
I also saw an interesting interview with Stein - what do you think of this? http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/03/rc-sproul-interviews-ben-stein.html
Comment #151523 by clearthinker on March 28, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Of course this is not new. Atheist Sunday schools have existed before. Of course all those who follow the TGD line will be opposed to such indoctrination of children. Whatever happened to 'atheists have no central beliefs - we are just people who don't believe in God?". I guess that this group just want to pass on the meme of their faith.
27. Wicked untruths from the Church
Comment #149602 by clearthinker on March 26, 2008 at 1:43 am
The idea that conscience (when solely related to religious beliefs) is sufficient excuse for an MP to kick up a fuss about this Bill leaves me cold. It has, indeed, led me to question whether all MP's in this country should be vetted for unfounded religious beliefs before they are allowed to take office, much in the same way as they are vetted for a criminal record.t
Indeed - noone should be allowed into office who has 'unfounded' religious beliefs. Are there any 'founded'? Ban everyone who has a religious belief. People should be tested and 'vetted'. Speaking of vets if they do not recant perhaps they should have a lobotomy to remove the infected part of their brain, or at least castrated so that they are not allowed to produce offspring who will be infected by the pernicious disease of religion. We need to rid our society of this virus. How else can we have a Brave New World?
28. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #149060 by clearthinker on March 25, 2008 at 4:09 am
Sorry - but you will forgive me saying this. The more I look at this, the more I think that RD and PZ have been suckered. Not just to appearing in the film in the first place but in terms of this publicity stunt. There is no way that RD was not recognised. Now there are six articles on this website alone - and hundreds of blogs - its all publicity. I wasn't particularly planning to go and see this film but now my interest has been aroused - and I suspect that will be true for many others. The producers of Expelled are not going to be bothered about being ridiculed here - they would expect that anyway. They are going to be delighted that their movie made it onto the New York Times.
A few other comments.
As I see it, the irony (sadly) is that he uses a Nazi-comparison in an article that criticises a film for making comparisons and allegations of allegiance with Naziism.
31 - M- Phil - I don't always agree with you but I also find your posts stimulating and fair. In this instance you are spot on.
53 - Quine
clearthinker, I think I see your point here. We can't really know if he was "lying for Jesus" v. other possibilities such as "lying to get money out of the followers of Jesus." I understand you are in the preaching business, so I can see that you would be upset when someone short-cuts the process, and attempts to obtain these funds by means of deceit. Perhaps you can help us out by using your connections to find out which kind of lying is going on here, and if it is a stain on your profession, let us know and we will gladly help you clean house.
My point was simply that this whole thing is a farce and far too simplistic. I have not seen the film and have no desire to get caught up in some kind of childish American cultural war. But I do not see what this event has to do with Jesus. Are all creationists Christians? Is Ben Stein? Dawkins is quite within his rights to mock the foolishness of the 'Expelled' producer in having PZ expelled. Although having six featured articles on this website is slightly OTT, and smacks more of childish immaturity rather than responsible debate. However he is wrong to write an article on the subject which he entitles - 'lying for Jesus' - unless he knows the motivation, religion and aims of the producer. But that does not really bother RD - ad hominem attack is his main weapon and anything he can do to link Christianity to the ridiculous - he will do.
64 - Double Bass
You are one of those "Liars for Jesus" yourself and don't seem to know it.
Thanks for the info. Not being part of this particular sub-group I am not sure of the 'in language' that you use. So thank you for letting me know that 'lying for Jesus' is a term you use for anyone who dares to disagree with you.
112 - Roland F
All his official writings and speeches talk about the Holocaust as fulfillment of Gods will, the only source of alleged atheism as reason is some dubious third hand 'table talk' document which is even considered to be a likely forgery similar like in the 1980s the fake 'Tagebucher' ( personal diary)
The irony in this is that you contradict Carr who gives us a couple of quotes from this 'dubious third hand table talk document' - and which is being hailed as proof that Hitler was a creationist! The whole debate about Hitler is quite interesting. MPhil probably has it right - Hitler hated Christianity and sought to obliterate it. He was motivated by self and by power. But what a lot of people forget is that it was not just about Hitler but about the culture which allowed him to get into power and largely supported him in power. Certainly there was a strong element of anti-semitism in German Christianity - as there was throughout Europe. But there was also a strong element in German society of Nietzchian philosophy (God is dead) and social Darwinianism. This was especially true in the Universities where the march of science, and the progress of man was considered to go hand in hand. Support for the Nazis was strongest in the academic and scientific communities - including the great biologist Konrad Lorenz.
115 - Stephen
The Nazis banned books on what they called 'primitive' Darwinism.
Stephen - could you tell us which books they banned? And your source for this information?
120 - Stephen
According to Table Talk, on 5 July 1942, Hitler was preoccupied with making sure that the Oberammagau Passion plays took place.
Of course. He was not really bothered about the Russian front, the North African war, or the Final Solution. That was just a side show compared to the Passion play..wonderful stuff...
132 - Bueboy
Lying for Jesus is one of the key weapons in the fundamentalists' arsenal. They are, I am sure, vaguely aware that lying is forbidden by their holy book, but when you are doing it for a 'good' cause and will be forgiven by a personal saviour, they feel themselves to be justified in their actions. To paraphrase their approach, "I can be a complete hypocrite because my actions are justified by my beliefs."
It all makes me want to weep.
So it should. Not least because it is completely untrue. I would never feel justified in lying for my faith. That would be self contradictory as well as stupid. In fact what you write is a classic piece of the New Atheist way of thinking. If we don't agree with someone call them a liar - and then self analyse that by telling your fellow believers that the only reason Christians do this is because they think their actions can be justified by their beliefs. Never mind the small detail that Christianity teaches the very opposite.
135 - Galactor
"great, now I know that God doesn't exist I'll start mass murdering", did they?
Again this is the simplistic argument that is a key part of the current New Athiest Creed and is repeated mantra like on every occasion. Athiests are just people who don't believe in God and that has nothing to do with their motivation. The fact that if this were true then this website would consist only of one statement continually repeated sems to escape you. (and repetative as this website is, even I would not go so far as to say that it is that bad!). The fact is that both Stalin and Hitler felt that without a God and with the view of 'the strongest survive' - they were justified in doing what they were doing
138 - Norman
If Hitler and the Nazis were so influenced by atheism why did Hitler say:
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
- Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
Blockquote text
Because he was making a public political statement in the context of a nation that was historically and culturally Christian. Because he equated atheism with communism. Because he was a good politician. This no more proves that Hitler was not an atheist than Tony Blair declaring he is for peace proves that he was not a warmonger. And asking people to go to your own website where you have 'quote mined' Hitler is not of much use either. You start of with the presupposition that Hitler could not have been an atheist and then look for quotes which support your conclusion. It would be far better for people, if they are interested enough, to look at speeches, sayings and actions of the Nazis and then examine them in the historical and cultural context of the time. Of course that means that Wikipeida and the atheist apologist websites are of very limited use. It also means you will have to think for yourself. But thats not such a bad idea - is it?
155 - Norman
Even if Hitler did consider himself a good Christian, which I strongly doubt, it has to be a very distorted and deformed kind of Christianity,...
Is there another kind?
And sadly Norman now demonstrates his motivation.
204 - Stephen Carr -
And still not a single quote by anybody where Hitler even mentions Darwin, let alone claim that it is true that his beloved Aryan-race descended from apes..
Hitler explicitly rejected the idea that man had evolved. I gave a quote of him questioning the whole idea, in words which a creationist would be proud to speakt
Since you want to cite teh table talk I wonder why you left out this - which RD cites. "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity."
And as for Hitlers views on evolution - how about thisl?
Traudl Junge, Hitlers personal secretary - "Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps its going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. "Science isn't yet clear about the origins of humanity, he once said. "We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.
Now then - who do I believe? Hitlers personal secretary or an atheist who wants to 'prove' that Hitler was not an atheist? Maybe she was making it up and is part of a fiendish creationist plot? Maybe Traudl Junge was 'lying for Jesus'? Or maybe its just the truth?
By the way I don't think we can prove that Hitler was an atheist - although I do think that he, and many within Germany accepted atheist presuppositions and used them to develop their racist and 'might is right' agenda.
29. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #148713 by clearthinker on March 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Dr Dawkins,
Could you please tell us what Mark Mathis has to do with Jesus? How do you know his motivation for lying was 'for Jesus'? Is this not just another cheap shot in a rather silly 'culture' war?
30. Fleabytes
Comment #147949 by clearthinker on March 21, 2008 at 4:29 pm
More on Einstein.
Alan F (6632) .
1) The letters are not cited by Dawkins to prove (as Paula alleges) that Einstein was not a believer. Dawkins (rightly) uses Einsteins own words - not the words of those who opposed him. The letters he cites are intended to show that some religious people at the time did not think Einstein was a believer. This is done in order to refute the view that Dawkins sees in religious apologists the tendency to claim Einstein as one of their own. It is interesting that Dawkins does not cite any of these modern day apologists. I certainly am not aware of any but would think that if RD can cite representative people from the 1940's - then today should not be too difficult. So RD where is your evidence that today religious apologists are claiming Einstein as one of their own? Anyway the main point is that the letters are not cited to prove that Einstein was not a Christian. Paula asks how 'an honest mind' could not realise that Dawkins cites the letters to prove that Einstein was not a believer? The answer is quite simple. Because he did not. He cites Einsteins own words to 'prove' that he is not a believer.
2.
Let me remind you that Paula stated that you claimed "that Dawkins cites letters from Christians chiding Einstein's lack of religion purely so that he can "imply or assert that Christians are either ignorant or full of 'intellectual and moral cowardice'". Is Paula's statement correct? Did she fairly represent what you said?
No - she did not represent what I said. She added the word 'purely' which changes everything. Its always dangerous to comment on something you have not read- especially when you are making accusations. I did not say that Dawkins cites the letters 'purely' so that he can accuse Christians of 'intellectual and moral cowardice'. I actually pointed out that there were other letters which could be used to show that Christians disagreed with Einsteins view. I acknowledged the purpose in that. But why did Dawkins cite these particular ones? So that, as well as showing that some religious leaders in the 1940's did not agree with Einstein, he could also mock and make his comments about ignorance and intellectual and moral cowardice. Its a bit like me citing Billy or Dr Benway as typical of atheists on this website. Hardly fair - at least not without some qualification.
3.
Yes indeed, now that you're really getting into it, I can see why various posters have pegged you as intellectually dishonest. You're deliberately missing Dawkins' point so that you can score points with readers who actually want to believe you. To prove my point, let's see what Dawkins actually wrote.
No I am not being intellectually dishonest. And I know what Dawkins wrote. And I know all the quotes he gave concerning Einstein. I did not question those or disagree with those - or even Dawkins analysis of them. Yet you write them down as though I were. I was referring SPECIFICALLY to the four letters mentioned from the 1940's. So most of your quotes are irrelevant because they are not under dispute and it is intellectually dishonest of you to suggest that they are.
4. Your links and quotes about Einstein being a pantheist just don't work- not least because you do not say where they came from. The question is what Einstein said himself. And Jammer makes it perfectly clear. Personally I was quite happy to accept what RD says in TGD about Einstein (and say so in my letters - something Paula strangely misses out). However I had not realised just how selective (and dishonest) RD was being. He admits that Jammer's books is his main source of quotations from Einstein on religious matters. It is Jammers book which gives the quote where Einstein says he could not be called a pantheist - yet RD says he is a pantheist. RD specifically says that Einstein is not a deist.
Ironically it is Jammers book that says that what really made Einstein angry were atheists who quoted him in support of their views. Which is precisely what RD is doing!
So whilst Styrer might rejoice in your devastating expose of my ;wily ways' the fact is that most of your post is irrelevant (the quotes from Einstein are not in dispute) and the two major complaints still stand. Paula is misquoting and misunderstanding what I said (which I still stand by) and Dawkins is, by selectively quoting, doing the very thing that Einstein said made him angry.
Let me leave you with one more quote from Einstein.
My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God"
There you have it. When did an atheist or pantheist believe in a 'him' (note the personal pronoun) who is a superior reasoning power? I am certainly not claiming that Einstein believed in the Christian God, or was even just a Theist. I have to go where the evidence leads me. Its just sad that RD has already decided the destination and, like many others on this site, only selects those things which help him get to his predetermined destination.
31. Fleabytes
Comment #147897 by clearthinker on March 21, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I will come back to the other comments but I want to say something about the 'Einstein' sub - thread before it disappears. Just to remind you of what I posted earlier.
Distorting Einstein....
6452 - Alan F
Classic Robertson distortion -- of the kind we are familiar with from Wee Flea's posts -- follows, when he claims that Dawkins cites letters from Christians chiding Einstein's lack of religion purely so that he can "imply or assert that Christians are either ignorant or full of 'intellectual and moral cowardice'" -- whereas actually it is quite clear from TGD that they are cited to refute the claim made by so many Christians that Einstein was himself a believer. Once more I must ask -- how could an honest mind not realise this?
Having just reread The God Delusion I can only agree with Paula's assessment of Dawkins' intent, and so your claim (as quoted by Paula) is simply false. If you, somewhere in these 130 pages of posts, have refuted Paula's assessment, then please point me to it. If you can't, then my opinion stands.
Actually this is remarkably easy. The letters referred to are on p16 and 17 of TGD. They are from an American RC lawyer, the president of a historical society in NJ and the Founder of Calvary Tabernacle. Dawkins comments on these that they 'damningly expose the weakness of the religious mind', and 'every sentence drips with intellectual and moral cowardice'. Therefore I am perfectly correct in stating that Dawkins uses these letters to show that Christians are ignorant or 'full of intellectual and moral cowardice' - that is precisely what Dawkins himself says! Forgive me for taking him at his word! Besides which - why would Dawkins cite letters from Christians whom he regards as weak minded and intellectual cowards, as proof that Einstein was not a Christian?! Both Alan and Paula are so desperate to accuse me of distorting that they end up making Dawkins look foolish!
Actually since I wrote the Dawkins Letters I have made some rather interesting discoveries. Being a trusting soul I took at face value what Dawkins said about Einstein's atheism/pantheism in TGD and said so in my letters. In the next edition I will have to revise that because it turns out that RD was being a little selective/economical with the truth. Einstein wrote "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist". Or this from Jammer "Einstein always protested against being regarded as an atheist. In a conversation with Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein, for example, he declared, 'What really makes me angry is that they (people who say there is no God) quote me for support of their views". Both of these quotes are from Jammers 'Einstein and Religion' which Dawkins cites as a source for TGD. Or how about this one? "My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himslef in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. that deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, whcih is revealied in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God" (from the quotable Einstein). To describe Einstein as a pantheist as RD does when Einstein specifically says 'I don' think I can call myself a pantheist' is just sadly too typical of the selective nature of TGD.
The following is Steves response (6573)
Atheist is opposite of theist. Einstein was, if anything, at most deist, and more likely simply metaphorical.
You will forgive me saying this but you are missing the point. You are of course correct in saying that Einstein was a deist (like Flew now is). But the irony of my post is as follows: Paula and Allan both accused me of dishonesty, falsehood and distortion. I proved that what I wrote about RD's use of the letters was correct - (strangely no apology or word from either of my accusers). However in the course of that it became clear that the very thing they were accusing me of was what RD was guilty of in TGD. In other words he took selective quotes from a book (Jammers' Einstein and Religion") in order to say that Einstein was a pantheist despite the fact that this very book tells us that Einstein said "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" and that this book also tells us that what really made Einstein angry was when atheists quoted him in support of their views. Personally I find this quite shocking and makes TGD an even worse book than I had imagined.
32. Fleabytes
Comment #147674 by clearthinker on March 21, 2008 at 5:37 am
Distorting Einstein....
6452 - Alan F
Classic Robertson distortion -- of the kind we are familiar with from Wee Flea's posts -- follows, when he claims that Dawkins cites letters from Christians chiding Einstein's lack of religion purely so that he can "imply or assert that Christians are either ignorant or full of 'intellectual and moral cowardice'" -- whereas actually it is quite clear from TGD that they are cited to refute the claim made by so many Christians that Einstein was himself a believer. Once more I must ask -- how could an honest mind not realise this?
Having just reread The God Delusion I can only agree with Paula's assessment of Dawkins' intent, and so your claim (as quoted by Paula) is simply false. If you, somewhere in these 130 pages of posts, have refuted Paula's assessment, then please point me to it. If you can't, then my opinion stands.
Actually this is remarkably easy. The letters referred to are on p16 and 17 of TGD. They are from an American RC lawyer, the president of a historical society in NJ and the Founder of Calvary Tabernacle. Dawkins comments on these that they 'damningly expose the weakness of the religious mind', and 'every sentence drips with intellectual and moral cowardice'. Therefore I am perfectly correct in stating that Dawkins uses these letters to show that Christians are ignorant or 'full of intellectual and moral cowardice' - that is precisely what Dawkins himself says! Forgive me for taking him at his word! Besides which - why would Dawkins cite letters from Christians whom he regards as weak minded and intellectual cowards, as proof that Einstein was not a Christian?! Both Alan and Paula are so desperate to accuse me of distorting that they end up making Dawkins look foolish!
Actually since I wrote the Dawkins Letters I have made some rather interesting discoveries. Being a trusting soul I took at face value what Dawkins said about Einstein's atheism/pantheism in TGD and said so in my letters. In the next edition I will have to revise that because it turns out that RD was being a little selective/economical with the truth. Einstein wrote "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist". Or this from Jammer "Einstein always protested against being regarded as an atheist. In a conversation with Prince Hubertus of Lowenstein, for example, he declared, 'What really makes me angry is that they (people who say there is no God) quote me for support of their views". Both of these quotes are from Jammers 'Einstein and Religion' which Dawkins cites as a source for TGD. Or how about this one? "My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himslef in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. that deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, whcih is revealied in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God" (from the quotable Einstein). To describe Einstein as a pantheist as RD does when Einstein specifically says 'I don' think I can call myself a pantheist' is just sadly too typical of the selective nature of TGD.
33. Fleabytes
Comment #147672 by clearthinker on March 21, 2008 at 5:33 am
Robertson is nasty and a liar part two....
6328 - Philip
Plus I don't bully, mentally torture,obstruct knowledge and reason with my atheism, I don't bully etc at all, but if I did it would be because I was a bully etc and not an atheist!
And you would apply the same criteria to me? I am such a creep because I am - not because of my religion? And TGD's arguments that religion makes people bad is invalid?
Stop printing lies and distortions!
Please tell me what they are. I'm tired of this continual accusation without evidence. Please provide the evidence of lying and I will apologise.
6333 - Steve
Now, to the blatant lie:
To quote from the blog....
DR claimed that RD believes that "the harm done by teaching children religion is as bad as sexual abuse".
However, you say you will deal with this.
Yes - see my post above on letter 10. It is dealt with.
6337
Under certain circumstances. But what you said on the night was:
the harm done by teaching children religion is as bad as sexual abuse
Which is completely different. It may not be absolutely verbatim, but I wrote things down as you said them to ensure that they were accurate.
Yes - you are accurate. And I stand by my comments because that is what RD says. See my comments on letter 10 above for the evidence.
6342 - Tyler
Because his audience is just as ignorant and more than happy to lap it up. If they did ever get themselves an education, Robertson would be out of work!
Again Tyler - this is what you want to believe. But my audience is generally not that. Firstly my own congregation includes several doctors, PhDs, scientists etc. Secondly I usually speak to educated audiences. For example in the Borders meeting in Cambridge there were many academics (many of whom disagreed with me) - you can hear the talk at http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=103072 However again to defend your belief system you have to beleive that either I am mad or bad, and now in a new variation of that theme my audience is now ignorant. You will forgive me saying it sounds a bit desperate!
6391 - Dr Benway
Straining gnats but missing the camels. Let's say that old thread in question had 900-ish posts before something happened to the server. Still can't brag it's had the most posts. Why do you waste our time like this?
Furthermore, what alternate universe do you live in, where quantity of posts on a message board serve as a measure of the quality of the original posting?
Dr Benway. I did not make the claim. I don't think the number of posts on a mb serves as a measure of the quality of the original posting - witness this thread. And you accused me of lying. I showed you where that was wrong. But you still cannot bring yourself to recognise that, never mind apologise! Why? Why are you so desperate to prove me a liar? Why do you want to believe that so much? And when are you going to offer proof?
6400 - Vaal
I had hoped to hear something from you that would make me stand up and take notice, but it is still the same old straw men, smokes and mirrors. I am staggered you believe it yourself, when you look back and see what you are writing.
Of course you had not hoped to hear something that would make you stand up and take notice. For you there can be no such thing. Little wonder that you are 'staggered'! How can someone be so stupid as not to see the obvious truth? And of course they have to be stupid - if the truth is so blindingly obvious. There is literally nothing I could say which would make you reconsider that. So why bother? Because I believe in miracles.
6406 - Clodhopper
It is quite quite pointless even trying to engage DR on any rational level in this debate. I venture that it is a game only DR can win because all he really wants is the attention and that is what we continue to give him.
So why don't we just stop? He doesn't deserve it and if he doesn't get the attention he craves I predict he will move on. If we keep feeding him, well....
There, a testable hypothesis. Anyone game?
First of all I do not crave the attention on this website. In fact I could really do without it and when I am finished my 'shredding ' of Paula's review I will leave it alone. I was quite happy away from it until a couple of you contacted me to accuse me of cowardice for not responding to an article I did not know existed and also of lying about the quotes in my book. Sound familiar?!
Secondly it is clear that having failed to answer the arguments and then having failed in the tactics of ridiculing, questioning my sanity and accusing me of nastiness, this is now the only route for you to 'win'. Maintain a 'dignified' silence on the grounds that I am just an attention seeker. Then you will know that you are right.
6441 tsinch
There is nothing I can do about the 'nasty' remarks - you perceive what you want to perceive and pick up what you want to pick up.
Yes there is. Break the silly cycle of name-calling and rebuttals - ignore it all, and instead of spending hours typing replies like the above, engage in some proper debate (there are plenty of examples hereabouts to show this is possible).
mixmastergaz has provided a great starting point at 6392/#147324. Let's hear, in detail (i.e. not just one-liners), what your side of the argument is.
Tim
Thanks Tim. That, believe it or not, is what I have been trying to do. If you go through my posts you will see hours of work on trying to answer most of the issues that have been raised. I cannot help it if my views arouse such ire here.
6448
clearthinker: Dr Benway, all you have to do then is provide the evidence. I'm still waiting.
This is what I meant in my earlier post about the logical positivist position of most of the people on this website. The only evidence you will accept is mathematical or scientific. I don't want to go into all this again (see my earlier post) but the reason logical positivism failed as a philosophy is that it itself cannot be empirically proven. In other words it is self-contradictory.
Could you please tell me why this is a lie? If you not a logical positivist could you let me know what evidence you would accept that is not empirical? Try again.
6452 - Allan
My comments are not based on any received text -- which is the only basis for "fundamentalism" -- but on 17 years of personal experience with Christian (and a variety of truly crackpot) apologists. If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, and you're certainly doing some quacking, so when I see from you exactly what I've seen from other apologists, what else am I to conclude?
Your definition of fundamentalism is not one that I would share. I explain in my own 'Letters' why RD and his followers can be described as Fundamentalists. It if quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck....
6454 - Mike
David,
I am an extremely open guy. I want to see and get the best from people without trying to manipulate, court favour, or control them.
I can handle anger, mundane blatherers, showboatists, mendacity, even when it's droll, and when i get corrected, I, along with everybody else on this site, stand corrected.
To stand. Corrected. Doesn't that give you the tickles?
I want you to know many of my christian friends are finding it difficult to follow your slippery, confusing, (their words) interlocution. I pointed out that interlocution didn't seem to be your goal. They agreed. Things are not adding up to them. It's the re-interpretation of your previously made points that is frustrating them.
Without pointing them in the direction of your website for 'real' debate, they implore you to be cogent without the smarm, ungoadable, less concerned about book sales, a slave to brevity, More trusting, less suspicious and generally more interested in fine debate with fine people. They all nod once as i finish this sentence ; )
I draw your attention (without a trace of conceit) to the dicourse that is developing between epeeist, mlearnedfriend, Al, and others. There might not be a conclusion as such, but to see it happen, is reason, and edification enough that it takes place.
What can I say - you've got me! I would love to know how many of your christian friends find my words confusing, slippery etc. Do you have a lot of Christian friends who have read through this whole thread? Or who have read my letters? The image of them all sitting round you nodding as you type your accusations against me is an interesting one. And what is the point about book sales? I have hardly mentioned that - I have placed almost all my letters for free on our website. My book is priced at £5 and has sold about 20,000 copies. TGD has sold more than 1.5 million. I am interested in dealing with the arguments within TGD. Tell your Christian friends that I would be more than happy to hear directly from them (my e-mail is darobertson@blueyonder.co.uk - please feel free to pass it on). As good Christians they will know that if a brother sins it is their responsibility to point it out to the person concerned directly - not hand it on to an atheist who then uses it to attack me in public. So please feel free to give them my details and I will listen to what they have to say. I have often been wrong and will be again - but the wounds of a friend are faithful.
Meanwhile as I have spent all morning answering questions etc perhaps you could return to engaging in the arguments instead of wasting time attacking me personally.
6461 - Frankus
Given, a man with moderate intellect, a moral standard not higher than the average, some rhetorical affluence and great glibness of speech, what is the career in which, without aid of birth or money, he may most easily attain power and reputation...?
...in which a smattering of science and learning will pass for profound instruction, where platitudes will be accepted as wisdom, bigoted narrowness as holy zeal, unctuous egoism as God-given piety? Let such a man become an evangelical preacher; he will then find it possible to reconcile small ability with great ambition, superficial knowledge with the prestige of erudition, a middling morale with a high reputation of sanctity.
She was talking about a Dr. Cummings. Oddly, this reminds me of someone else.
I guess this is a good place to leave it just now. You cannot handle the argument so you resort to personal abuse. Interesting that one touch or irony or sarcasm from yours truely results in a plethora of posts from atheists complaining 'oh - you are so unchristian - and my christian friends think so', but this kind of ad hom goes completely unremarked upon - except those who write in to say 'oh - how wonderful - just what I was thinking!'.
34. Fleabytes
Comment #147670 by clearthinker on March 21, 2008 at 5:30 am
Once again I am going to divide my responses to the comments into two posts - the serious arguments and the 'Robertson is nasty and a liar' thread.
6330 - Peace
You leave the door open to believing anything. Every position is equaly valid.
I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that you are a logical positivist and that the only alternative to that is to believe anything?
6333 - Steve
We get life from non-life all the time. That is what happens when you eat things!
I am sorry I do not understand this. How does eating things create life from non-life?
There are several posts along the lines of 'what a fool Robertson is for asking about getting life from non-life - doesn't he know?". As I said I am always willing to be enlightened and I freely admit my ignorance in this area - which is why I am asking the question. But I am just as puzzledd that whilst several of you have asserted with the full force of the religious believer that of course you can get life from non-life - none of you have given a reason, or been able to explain how. And an article from Wikipedia about RNA is not an answer. Can someone please explain how you get life from non-life? And can you tell me why Flew considers this a major proof for theism?
6360 - Allan - Thanks for the info. It was a fascinating article. Very helpful. And makes me praise God all the more for what he has made.
6361 - Geoff
1. You repeatedly use the deliberately emotive phrase: "a child in the womb". Do you genuinely believe that a fertilised egg, or a blastocyst, is "a child"? A form of "Pascal's wager" doesn't really work.
If you do, we may be getting into the realms of theodicy here.
Thanks. I guess my position is best summed up by the following from LIFE - One of LIFE's core values is our recognition of the fact that human life begins at conception i.e. fertilisation. When an egg is fertilised by a sperm a whole series of biological and chemical changes begin, and a new and unique human individual has come into being; a self-directed, self-perpetuating, integrated, whole human organism, quite unlike the egg and sperm from which it was formed.
6392 - Mixmaster
But you've certainly given me some straight answers now! Let's deal with them one at a time. You say Mark wrote the last chapter of Mark's Gospel. Well, a clear majority of Biblical scholars insist that there are two authors at work here. The author of 16: 1-8 is clearly the same individual who wrote the preceding chapters. 16: 9-20 however (which contains the account of the resurrection) is not present in the earliest manuscripts we have of this particular Gospel, and those who are expert in comparing the stylistic and linguistic features of these two texts agree (not with unanimity but nonetheless overwhelmingly) that 16: 9-20 is a later addition by a different hand. When I first learned of this I was deeply troubled by it. At the time I had a limited and naïve understanding of the authorship and compilation of the scriptures, and I believed in their accuracy and reliability. This was one of the discoveries that first caused me seriously to doubt my Christian faith.
Often these kind of questions are side issues which distract from the main purpose of the thread - and usually they are no more than accusation just picked up from Wikipedia or an atheist apologist website (the approach Billy takes). However in your case these are real questions and really important issues and so I don't want to avoid them.
I am sorry that Mark 16:9-20 lead to you doubting your Christian faith. Forgive me saying this but if you had received a good biblical understanding this would not have happened. Firstly a minor point - the Resurrection account is in Mark 16:1-8 and NOT 9-20. Secondly Mark 16:9-20 is clearly not written by Mark (or John Mark as he is known). It is an addition which in my view should not be part of the Bible. When I preach through Mark I do not preach on that part as I believe that it has been clearly demonstrated that it is a later add on to the Gospel of Mark. So I should have said that Mark wrote the last chapter of his Gospel - but that last chapter should not include verse 9-20.
Turning to John's Gospel and Revelations, again you're at odds with the experts on this issue. I have never met a Biblical scholar who believes that these books are by the same author, and I met quite a few (before I abandoned 18 months of research towards a PhD in theology). I heard recently that even the deeply theologically conservative current Pope accepts that there are two authors of these distinctly different texts. Again, this was something that troubled me deeply as a practising Catholic. This seemed to undermine the reliability of scripture to an even greater extent since acceptance of this logically necessitated believing that the claims to the contrary, within the pages of inerrant scripture, were deliberate falsehoods. I know there are those who have found imaginative ways to square this particular circle, but I find their attempts to be an affront to common sense, inspired by a desire to hold on to a disproven belief in the teeth of the evidence (I can hear a voice asking me, "Ah, but what do you mean by evidence?").
As it happens I am currently preaching through the book of Revelation in our evening service therefore I have spent several months looking at these issues - text, purpose, origin and authorship. I know several mainstream scholars who do accept that it was written by the apostle John. However there is a division over this. The style of Revelation is very different from the Gospel of John (both in language and grammar). This could be because Revelation was written some 30 years later and because of the difference in subject matter. There is also the possibility that there was a 'school of John' from which this came. However the important thing is this - the book itself does not state that it was written by the apostle John and therefore even if it turned out that it was not, it would not make much difference. It is after all 'the Revelation of Jesus Christ' not the Revelation of John.
Ok, for you Christ's ministry lasted three years. But I'm sure the disparity of either a one year or a three year ministry between the various canonical Gospels is not news to you. Again, for me this discrepancy was troubling and further undermined my belief in the reliability of scripture. You're also no doubt aware that, according to the Gospels, the last supper occurred either on the eve of the Passover or on the Passover itself. Admittedly, this discrepancy alone does not completely undermine the reliability of scripture, but when considered in light of the many other discrepancies between the various Gospels it does serve to demonstrate that the four canonical Gospels cannot all be literally true.
Actually the current state of biblical scholarship is that there is no discrepancy re the length of the ministry of Jesus. The accounts of the Cross are apparently contradictory but I would suggest you read Wenham's Easter Enigma which manages to put them all together. They are not irreconcilable. Actually for me the discrepancies were something more faith affirming than denying. As a historian I would have been very suspicious of four separate accounts that were all the same! The differing four accounts ironically make more sense.
How can you be sure that these texts aren't what they appear to be: the comforting fireside tall-tales of ancient, superstitious and semi-literate desert shepherds?
But that is precisely what they do NOT appear to be. It's like saying that 'The Blind Watchmaker' appears to be the writings of a tabloid journalist! The only shepherds who were involved in writing were King David and the prophet Amos. John was a fisherman, Paul a scholar, Moses a leader, Solomon - the wisest man who ever lived, etc etc. I have read ancient myths, superstitious legends etc - indeed I love reading them. However the Bible is just not in that league. So the question just does not make sense because it is based on a false premise.
Hope that helps. (By the way Shanes later comments are just simply wrong - it is clear he is not a theologian and not really aware of the material. I have about 23 books which look at the issues raised by Mark and Revelation. The consensus is what I have written above). If you want to study it more you can but the above should be enough to go on
6398 - Frankus
You gave 3 options for acquiring the specific amount of money you needed.
1) coincidence
2) you lied
3) God did it
You chose option 3. I choose option 1.
I gave another possiblity for your belief in answered prayer, i.e. you are not very smart.
I may want to ammend that: you do not base your life on any set standards of evidence. To me this is not very sound thinking. There is just no way to judge the validity of your claims. It is only true because you believe it to be true.
Ok - lets leave aside the 'you are not very smart' comment. If it is a coincidence then is some coincidence. I will not go through all the details again. But let me say this again. I do not believe in Jesus Christ because of this one incident or because I can give a mechanical theory of prayer (I can't) but I simply used it as one example. Have I ever experienced answered prayer? yes - but I think we will come up to some qbjections to this in a moment.
6402 - SWRB
This is exactly the point many of us tried to make all those pages ago. I cited the story about my daughter finding $10 floating in water at a beach (without the benefit of prayer) and DR scoffed at that. The point was that it was a coincidence, albeit a fortunate one, which DID NOT REQUIRE prayer. Sometimes shit just happens, sometimes it's bad and sometimes it's good!
SWRB - you are not comparing like with like. We are not talking about your daughter coming across $10 floating in the water. A comparable situation would be as follows: your daughter needs $187:50 to pay for a present for you - she only has $100 and does not know what to do. Let us say that she is a believer and she goes and prays for that amount. That day $87:50 arrives. How would you explain it? If she had told no-one? Of course what it means is a different matter. But would she be right to regard it as answered prayer or just a very happy co-incidence (which did not work in another parallel universe where she prayed and got nothing!)?
6414 - Several
Actually four/five conclusions can be made. Here's the fourth: Someone inadvertently told someone and/or someone overheard someone in a conversation about the need for the money. And your #1 and #3 are really the same in this case. Many people seem to underestimate the probability of coincidence, and they rename it 'extraordinary' And yes you've pointed out that this, in and of itself is not proof or evidence of god's existence, but rather a whole bunch of little things like it can point to god. I'd be willing to bet that for every 'extraordinary' (your term) instance there have been hundreds, if not thousands of 'un-extraordinary" instances where 'prayers' weren't answered (and god said "no" is not an answer). This evidence, weak as it is if even existent, is fully refuted by the presence of all those 'non-answered' prayers.
A good point. Except that I know no-one was told. It was only that morning we discovered the cost - we told no-one. And personally I have never known a non-answered prayer.
6417 - MaxD
Science has several plausible hypotheses for this very important question. Regretably circumstantial evidence seems to point to several ofthem! It is still an open question to be sure. But so what? You are proposing a god of the gaps here and history has shown that to be terrible for religious explanation. And say that it was proven that life needed some outside force to get started, that would in no imply your particular version of the cause. Why not FSM? Or the Force? Perhaps Scientology has the real answer. I'm not trying to be flip, it just a common mistake, it seems, of the Christian apologist to assume that if science can't answer a certain question, obviously the Christian answer is then the only other plausible option.
Thanks. I agree. From what earlier posters were saying (Robertson is an idiot - doesn't he know) I had thought I was missing something. So we don't know. That of course does not justify the 'God of the gaps' nor does it mean that Christianity is necessarily true. That is accepted.
That should make sense to you. The arguement from incredulity is and always has been terribly weak. So even if we find the question ultitmately unanswerable that would be no reason to posit a god of any kind. It seems clear that evolution has happened and not needed any outside help (it proceeds on its own perfectly well in the modern world does it not?)
Again I agree. The argument from incredulity is terribly weak. From all sides. Resurrections don't happen! I can't believe that God would raise someone from the dead! I can't accept the idea of atonement! I can't believe that God would speak through a bunch of semi-literate shepherds! Actually this is what much of TGD does - argues from incredulity.
I have answered your points on child abuse in my comments on Paula's review above.
35. Fleabytes
Comment #147632 by clearthinker on March 21, 2008 at 3:11 am
Letter 10: The Myth of Religious Child Abuse
Lets return to Paulas review. We are now on to chapter ten. What is interesting about this one is that I am regularly accused of lying about what Dawkins says here - witness Q's report on the Bedford meeting. Well lets examine the evidence. I assume that most people here have read ch.9 in TGD - Childhood, Abuse and Religion.
It begins with a lengthy story about a child kidnapped in Italy in the 19th century. I'm afraid this is typical of Dawkins ad style. On the one hand he says 'I am not implying that this awful story could happen today' (which kind of begs the question - why tell it?) - on the other he says it sheds 'a pitiless light on present-day religious attitudes to children. Of course he does not explain why something which happened in the 19th century and which could not happen today sheds light on present day attitudes. Its not logical. Its not reasonable. But that is not Dawkins aim. It is a polemic which basically translates into people feeling - 'what a bunch of creeps these religious people are'.
The story continues with assertions that are just made and not evidenced at all. For example 'Edgardo's story was by no means unusual in Italy at the time. How does Dawkins know this? What are his sources? Does he have facts and figures for child abductions by Catholics in 19th century Italy? Or is this just another piece of rhetoric designed to stir up more disgust? Is it really the case that Jews in Italy were prepared to employ Catholic maids even if it meant losing their children through sneak baptisms, just so that they could keep the Sabbath and get someone else to light the fire? It is all highly entertaining reading - and makes for a good tabloid like rant - but there is no evidence. Besides which, does the fact that Edgardo's story came up in the British parliament and the press in the US not suggest that it might be a bit unusual? The trouble with this kind of story and rhetoric is that people just believe it because RD says it. But we need more evidence.
RD then goes on to state that 'priestly abuse of children is nowadays taken to mean sexual abuse. He then talks about his own experience of sexual abuse where all three of the boarding schools he attended had teachers 'whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety'. Dawkins then offers some sympathy for the Catholic church being accused of child sexual abuse before stating the following: "I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long ter psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place". There is a clear and unequivocal statement from Dawkins, dirrectly contrasting sexual abuse with religious abuse of children and suggesting that religious abuse is worse. He then goes on to give an example which he says shows "it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical".
(Incidentally at this point Dawkins directly contradicts himself. On p281 he had declared that the "hostility I or other atheists occasionally voice towards religion is limited to words" and not the violence that religion inspires in people. Yet here he states "sticks and stones my break my bones, but words can never hurt me'. The adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words". Does this not apply to atheist words as well?)
This is then followed by further horrific examples of Hell Houses, Dominion theology, the exclusive Brethren and repressed Catholics. All of which are part of the story - but again it is only part and again Dawkins cites it gleefully in his usual ad hom way. Be that as it may the real reason he is citing it is to prove his point that religious 'abuse' is at least equal to, if not worse than sexual abuse. And on p.325 he returns to the question again - comparing religious abuse with sexual abuse.
Then to reinforce the point he cites his colleague the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey in a lengthy quote - the end of which is "In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon". Dawkins says that such a statement needs qualification - but given what he has now stressed for several