451. Fleabytes

Comment #131573 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Kaiserkriss, that's nice of you, but I don't see myself as having the final word on the question of DR posting. It affects everyone, after all. I was just giving my view since you'd asked.

452. Fleabytes

Comment #131539 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 2:09 pm

He would want to write the foreword!

Why not the whole book, in fact?

453. Fleabytes

Comment #131536 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Taken to extremes, he would declare "censorship" unless allowed to write an appendix to Richard's next book.

Yes, I think you're right! Maybe someone should suggest it? ;-)

454. Fleabytes

Comment #131526 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 1:57 pm

: Perhaps he was hoping that previous accounts would get unbanned so he could say on his site or in the Free Church magazine about how important he is, although I'm sure he would have tried to mask it.

Then if he got banned again, it would provide an ideal opportunity for him to play the martyr once more.

I suspect that too. He'll twist and distort what happens on this forum, whatever it is. But that's not a reason for us not to behave in a way that's fair and reasonable, and giving him the right to reply is both of those things, it seems to me.

455. Fleabytes

Comment #131521 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Steve Zara: Which is why I am deeply suspicious of his motives

Well, so am I. But this is the site where his book has been analysed and criticised in considerable detail, so I don't think it's unreasonable for him to be able to post a reply here.

The only argument there ever was for not allowing him to post was his consistently offensive, personally abusive, twisting, distorting, evasive style. IF he wants to actually deal with the criticisms that have been made, and IF he's able to do so with just a normal degree of civility, why not? The one thing I will say about my own review is that I made a sincere effort genuinely to engage with the points he made in his book. It will be interesting to see whether he returns the compliment.

456. Fleabytes

Comment #131505 by Paula Kirby on February 22, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Have just been catching up with the comments posted in the last couple of days. I haven't been able to read the latest ones in detail, and I haven't yet read David's response to my review properly, so will respond to that separately, probably over the weekend if I get chance.

However, I did just want to respond to 2 posts from earlier pages in the thread. The first was that someone asked whether I, too, would welcome David's being unbanned so as to allow him to respond to my review - and my answer is an emphatic yes. It's only fair to give someone the right to reply, and I was very pleased to read Richard's post confirming that this was going to happen.

The second was David's own remark about Richard's having been offered (and having declined) a 1000-word article in the Free Church of Scotland magazine (thus supposedly demonstrating the Free Church's commitment to free speech).

I can actually comment on this in some detail, since it was this offer to Richard that indirectly resulted in the long review that has now appeared here.

Richard was indeed invited to submit a 1000-word response to 3 of the fleas - David Robertson, Andrew Wilson and Alister McGrath. Note the word limit. That's 330 words per book. In subsequent correspondence, the 1000 word limit was reduced to 900 words - 300 per book. To convey some kind of idea of how little that is, I had written 215 words as at the end of that last sentence.

Moreover, the request was sent to Richard just 6 days before the deadline for submission of the finished article.

As might have been expected, he was not able to read the books and write a review on them in such a short space of time. However, he did (via someone else at RDF) ask if I would like to take on the task instead and, meanwhile, the following response was sent to David:

I am afraid that Richard has too many other deadlines to be able to do a thorough job by the end of this month. We do however have someone we could recommend to write such a review if you so desire.

In other words, David was offered an alternative - not just a flat "no". This elicited the following response from him:

I'm afraid that I have plenty other people who would be happy to write a review - and as I kind of suspected that this would happen I have already asked a former president of the National secular society to write a review. (From Richard's point of view this may not be such a good thing as apparently he has been enlightened and become a Christian!).

So, contrary to the impression that David tried to give earlier, although Richard himself was unable to take on the task, he did offer an alternative; but David had already lined up a former-atheist-turned-Christian to do it instead and therefore did not accept. So much for his commitment to having a response from an atheist!

I would also come back to the point that the offer of 1000 words (later 900) to respond to the criticisms contained in three books was not overwhelmingly generous. You will note that there are no word limits imposed on David in his response to my review.

457. Fleabytes

Comment #130058 by Paula Kirby on February 20, 2008 at 1:55 am

MPhil, what can I say? You are clearly quite mad. Thanks for the laugh! :-)

458. Fleabytes

Comment #130051 by Paula Kirby on February 20, 2008 at 1:42 am

Steve Zara: I have a suggestion... rather than look for minor holes in the cosmological section of the attack on Robertson, why don't I go for just that section of his work myself as well, and it will seem more like a combining of forces

I'd really like that, Steve - it would add a lot. Thank you.

BAEOZ: Paula, what is the Baggini book you've read?

It was "Atheism: A Very Short Introduction", from the Oxford University Press (excellent) Very Short Introductions series.

459. Fleabytes

Comment #130046 by Paula Kirby on February 20, 2008 at 1:14 am

You forgot my harp ;-)

460. Fleabytes

Comment #130024 by Paula Kirby on February 19, 2008 at 11:34 pm

I decided to wait a little while before posting on this thread, as I needed to wait for my blushes to subside! You're all very kind with your comments - thank you.

Steve Zara, I do appreciate the thoughtful impulse that led you to withdraw your posts challenging some of the science - but it really wasn't necessary, I promise you. I am no scientist (though eager to learn) and make absolutely no claims to a deep scientific understanding of the universe. The cosmological section in this article was the one I felt least confident of, and I am only too happy for you or others to correct anything in it that's not right. Please keep it coming - I won't be remotely offended, and I know I will learn something.

As for those of you who've suggested that my sanity survived this close encounter with an infestation of fleas, well, yet again, you're very kind, but I suspect you might not have thought that if you'd been able to see me whilst I was actually reading the damn things!

In all seriousness, it was only (re-)reading the books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and (sorry, Steve) Stenger in between that kept me going at all. Oh, and the Baggini is excellent too. It was truly like coming up for air. They're all great books anyway, but what struck me when reading them in the context of the fleas was their sheer warmth and generosity, the way they all embrace and affirm life and people and learning. The flea books felt mean and petty and suffocating by comparison.

461. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #129713 by Paula Kirby on February 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm

The Bishop: I am praying for you all.

Er, why? What exactly do you think it will achieve? Are you just praying vague, woolly things such as that we eventually see the error of our ways, or are you praying for something specific, such as, say, that at least five of us will convert to Christianity by the end of March?

It would be helpful to know, because then we could keep you posted with the results. But perhaps you're not interested in actually testing whether prayer works - perhaps you prefer to just believe that it does, regardless of the available evidence.

462. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128977 by Paula Kirby on February 18, 2008 at 11:52 am

Cartomancer: Aww shucks, I had a fiver on Paula Kirby and wooter tying the knot first...

Ah, well, now you mention it ...

463. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128695 by Paula Kirby on February 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Good heavens, Richard Morgan, who would have thought that beneath that gruff exterior there lurked such a big softie! Good for you!

464. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128694 by Paula Kirby on February 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Yorker, I'm so very sorry to hear about your daughter. What a terrible thing to have to go through. But I'm so very, very delighted to hear the news about you and Veronique, and am so happy that you'll have that togetherness to help you get through.

Many, many congratulations to both of you - wonderful news! Thank you for sharing it with us.

465. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126981 by Paula Kirby on February 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm

HourglassMemory: And I loved hearing Richard saying "Let me finish! Let me finish!" almost like a kid. (and I don't mean this in any indirect insulting way. It just reminded me of a child whose lolipop had been taken)

I thought he was remarkably patient with her - I'd have snapped much sooner in the conversation. Did you hear how often she butted in, interrupted, wouldn't let him articulate his point, refused to hear him out before rushing to put her own views forward yet again? It's not just rude (though it IS rude - very): how can you have a sensible debate with someone if you're not prepared to listen properly to what they're saying?

As for her nonsense about there being truths that are not based in evidence or fact, I can't help wondering how she can possibly be sure that they are "truths" since she has just rejected out of hand the only means we have to assess the question.

If simply having a feeling about something is enough to constitute truth, then presumably she would have to accept as "true" every feeling ever held by anyone, ever, no matter how crazy, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how mutually contradictory. There can be no defence against ANY claim. I just don't understand how an intellect of even average capacity can fail to spot the ridiculousness of such a position.

466. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126300 by Paula Kirby on February 13, 2008 at 12:17 am

Chris H: How did Hitchens manage to extend the debate for five more minutes? It seemed like the moderator had no idea how to end the debate.

It was simply because the moderator had addressed his final question specifically to Rabbi Boteach and hadn't given Christopher Hitchens the opportunity to comment too. Besides, I think that by that stage of the proceedings, the moderator had started to despair of ever being able to control the two of them anyway. Poor chap!

467. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126125 by Paula Kirby on February 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Oh, that was bliss. Perfect entertainment. Christopher Hitchens in great, floor-wiping form. And as for Boteach - could you ask for a greater comic character? For bluff, bluster and sheer, downright blundering you just couldn't beat him.

"Richard Dawkins is one of the last people to believe in gradual evolution?" Seriously - when did you last laugh so much?

"Why did life only happen here?" - Wow, this man really does have some kind of insight not granted to us lesser mortals. All those millions upon millions of galaxies, and he knows for sure there's no life in any of them. That's so impressive.

"Mutation must always be beneficial for evolution to be true". Er ... not THAT easy to reconcile this with his claim to have actually studied evolution. Unless it was Answers in Genesis that he studied it from.

And some other gems - too perfect in themselves to require any further comment from me:

"Morality is antithetical to evolution because evolution is all about the survival of YOUR genes."

"If evolutionists are not racist, it's only because of the Ten Commandments."

And my personal favourite: "For evolutionists, time becomes a euphemism for God ... Time will save us from exploding galaxies."

This man should give up the rabbi nonsense and become a comedian. At least that would serve a useful purpose.

And finally - the moderator. Didn't you just love him?!!! Couldn't you just SEE him lose will to live during the Q&A?

But hats off to Christopher Hitchens for this performance. I have never seen anyone so comprehensively, wittily, mercilessly trounced. Wonderful stuff.

468. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125187 by Paula Kirby on February 11, 2008 at 3:49 am

I am entirely with those who are expressing their thanks to Richard Dawkins and wondering who on earth is going to be up to the task of replacing him ... but, since his retirement is still some months away and since (thank goodness) he has promised us that he has no intention of ceasing to roar, I'd like to focus my comments on Charles Simonyi himself.

If anyone has just skimmed his manifesto above, it's well worth reading in full. It is an outpouring of love of science, love of knowledge, the desire to educate, excitement at the wonders of the world and a generosity of mind that are reminiscent of Richard's own writings. The clarity of the vision, the willingness to be flexible in its implementation, the dedication to real scholarship (and the implicit rejection of anything resembling "dumbing down") and the wisdom of recognising that the ability to educate and communicate is even more crucial to the impact of this post than scientific knowledge alone - these are all rare and remarkable qualities.

Business has a bad name (often undeserved, I might add), big business even more so; but in my work I deal extensively with all three sectors - private, public and academic - and there is no doubt that there is NOTHING so effective at making things happen as a fired-up entrepreneur! How wonderful to see the sheer drive, determination, energy, vision and commitment that make for successful business applied to something as worthwhile as the promotion of science.

The words of Charles Simonyi's manifesto are absolutely right: the dearth of effective information flow between science and society is dangerous. Thanks to Richard Dawkins for tackling this issue so effectively in the last 12 years or so; good luck and best wishes to his successor, whoever that is; but let's not forget to express our thanks to Charles Simonyi too - without his vision, commitment and generosity with his resources science would face an even tougher struggle in the battle against unreason.

469. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124877 by Paula Kirby on February 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

bujin: We need Pat to have his own regular 5 minute slot on national TV! Maybe just after the news or something.

Or how about having him as a regular on Thought for the Day? That would wake a few people up!

470. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #121831 by Paula Kirby on February 4, 2008 at 8:05 am

Quetzalcoatl: I had considered that, but Wipeout's spelling and grammar is far better. Unless Wooter has taken Remedial English 101.....

Ah, but don't you remember how his style suddenly improved once before? We know he's not averse to getting a little help from his friends.

471. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #121825 by Paula Kirby on February 4, 2008 at 7:58 am

Quetzalcoatl: ... is as painful to read?

Well, yes - but what I really meant was that I thought Wipeout's post might possibly be seen as evidence for reincarnation.

472. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #121778 by Paula Kirby on February 4, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #121686 by wipeout on February 4, 2008 at 2:02 am

A Wooter by any other name ...

473. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121498 by Paula Kirby on February 3, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I have sent the following letter to the Telegraph:

Sir

Any medical practitioner who puts her religious beliefs, however sincerely held, before her duty to protect her patients from preventable infections is clearly a danger to the public and should be removed from post immediately ("Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'", telegraph.co.uk, 3 February). It is time to stand up to those who view their religion as the ultimate trump card.

Maybe others would like to write in too?

This seems to be a Sunday Telegraph article, rather than Daily Telegraph, but I've sent my letter to both addresses, to be on the safe side:
dtletters@telegraph.co.uk and stletters@telegraph.co.uk. You need to include your full postal address and phone number (although these won't be published).

474. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #121429 by Paula Kirby on February 3, 2008 at 11:41 am

german-atheist: s.rushdi is ten times more popular because of his death threat.

Did you notice the context in which this was said? Richard had just argued that Salman Rushdi's life had effectively been ruined because of the fatwa against him. And the Muslim guy in the audience THEN made this point about the book having sold 10 times more copies as a result. The inference being: "So he's got nothing to complain about."

Talk about blind faith.

475. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #121379 by Paula Kirby on February 3, 2008 at 10:26 am

My favourite bit (apart from Richard's evident amusement at the 14-year old's analysis of The God Delusion!) was when the young Muslim woman, Fatima, claimed to have looked into the question of hell for herself. I wonder what evidence she based her conclusions on ...

476. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #121297 by Paula Kirby on February 3, 2008 at 7:49 am

All that nonsense about faith schools giving children knowledge of other faiths: secular schools can and should do that too. What faith schools cling to is the right to give children knowledge of other faiths (and other understandings of morality) from the perspective of the school's own. Oona Stannard was actually quite explicit about this.

It was unwittingly confirmed by the young girl, Sinead, who, thinking she was arguing FOR faith schools actually said, "Being at Catholic schools has given me my own morals and beliefs" - which just happen to have turned out to be Catholic ones, it seems! Who would have thought it? Sinead, if you're reading: no one can give you your beliefs - they can only give you theirs.

Oona Stannard was spectacularly craven in outlining how a Catholic school would deal with a young girl who'd just had an abortion: it would treat her with compassion. Splendid. But why? Because of the need to "support the sinner".

This angers me so much. Here's a better reason, Oona: you could treat her with compassion because she's a young girl who's just been through a highly emotional and distressing experience, and who's probably feeling extremely confused, shocked and quite probably guilty too. Why should you need an excuse to respond to her with compassion in such circumstances?

The offensiveness of Oona's position on this question was only intensified by her agreement that the girl would actually have committed a mortal sin - i.e. would now go to hell no matter how much she came to repent in later life. How sick. So much for the comfort, support and compassion provided to a young girl at a distressing time.

The same kind of attitude was evident in the bishop's comment that "At least the Church of England is having the debate about homosexuality" - as if this were really evidence of exemplary, enlightened moral behaviour on the church's part. What's to debate, for goodness' sake? As the woman in the audience pointed out, society is ahead of you!

This reluctance on the part of the religious to respond to people with simple decency, tolerance and acceptance unless they can find a biblical excuse to do so is really repugnant. For the rest of us, common humanity is generally reason enough.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells, by the way, was as wet as his title. I do hope someone wrung him out after the show.

477. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117561 by Paula Kirby on January 29, 2008 at 5:42 am

Double Bass Atheist: I would like to propose a hypothetical question… let's say religion has to exist in some form. Would you rather have a world full of pious fundies or 'omeaga-types'?

Well, I don't think I'm prepared to settle for either of those options. They're both unworthy of human intelligence and as such I find them both highly undesirable and worth opposing.

Yes, absolutely, the pious fundies are much, much more dangerous, given their political influence and their impatience to bring on the rapture. In that respect, of course I have to agree that the world would be a safer place if it were full of Omeganists rather than fundies.

Nevertheless, when it comes down to individual interactions, give me a pious fundie rather than an Omeganist any day. I've actually had sensible discussions with fundies about their beliefs, but I've found it impossible to get anywhere close to a proper discussion with the woo-woo brigade. It's like trying to gift-wrap fog.

478. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117503 by Paula Kirby on January 29, 2008 at 1:42 am

Steve Zara: Sorry to pick you up on this, but you must have heard of Enya, Jean Michel Jarre, Steve Roach?

Actually no, I've never heard of Steve Roach! Enya's all very well if you're in the mood, and I remember being very taken with Jean Michel Jarre when I was 19 ... but I can't say they compare with, say, Mozart's Requiem ... or Bach's "Erbarme Dich" ... or Allegri's Miserere ... or a thousand others from the Christian tradition.

479. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117499 by Paula Kirby on January 29, 2008 at 1:32 am

Double Bass Atheist: So, may I quote you and use this writing?

Of course, Carmine! It would seem odd to me to write something on a public forum such as this and then to get prissy about ownership. I'm no lawyer, but I imagine our comments are all legally considered to be in the public domain anyway. Quote to your heart's content!

480. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117330 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Double Bass Atheist: Our efforts are better spent on the fundies, for they are the real threat… not some loopy guy's personal perception/definition of 'god'.

Yes, you and Cartomancer are absolutely right on this. The fundies are a much bigger threat in all sorts of ways. But at least there is some kind of logic to their arguments. Ok, ok, not in the real sense of logic, obviously, but if you buy into their fundamental premise (huge "if", I know), the rest of it does actually hang together.

I can also make excuses for people getting hooked on the theistic religions: upbringing, cultural pressures, brainwashing; and the theistic religions have generated, alongside the bad things, beautiful prose, lyrical poetry, sublime music, marvels of architecture ... There is much to admire, as well as much to oppose vigorously.

Whereas with this wishy-washy, New Agey, "it depends what you mean by truth" pseudo-philosophy, there is just NOTHING other than a woolly-minded, soppy-headed determination to see the universe as something it isn't. Hardly anyone's been actively brainwashed into believing this stuff. No one's heart has soared at the sight of New Age architecture. No one has wiped away a tear at the magnificence of New Age music. Yet all around the world otherwise intelligent people are actively turning to it, and choosing to fill their heads with intellectual candy floss. And there's just no excuse!

I agree - no one's going to fly a plane into a crowded building in the name of feng shui. But that doesn't mean the whole phenomenon doesn't irritate me almost beyond endurance. Christians at least don't argue that "there's no such thing as reality" - they simply have a different understanding of what reality is. That means we at least share a fundamental concept against which to argue our respective cases. But this New Age nonsense removes everything from the sphere of being able to be discussed at all - it puts EVERYTHING in the "ultimately unknowable" category. It is resolutely determined to see everything in pseudomystical terms - as if life weren't "mystical" enough (in the strictly Einsteinian sense, of course!)

I just find it so frustrating to see people rejecting mainstream religion, only to rush headlong into the outstretched arms of something even MORE ridiculous, even LESS evidence-based, and even MORE closely related to the contents of your rubbish bin. I want people to reject religion because they think too clearly and too rationally to fall for it; NOT because they've simply found a more appealing brand of woo woo.

Don't know whether anyone's noticed, but this stuff really WINDS ME UP!!!!!!!!!

481. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117278 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Corylus:as you have lots of others speaking to you I will stay quiet for a bit.

Good point about "lots of others speaking to you" - it's made it rather easy for him to evade most of our questions. It's a common pattern. However, Omega himself seems to be keeping rather quiet now. Can't say I'm sorry. Don't know about anyone else, but these New Age types wind me up even more than your average fundamentalist.

482. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117272 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Ayep, I called it, didn't I?

Sorry, Diacanu, I don't understand!

EDIT: Oh, hang on, I think my poor befuddled brain is catching up now!

483. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117264 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 1:14 pm

al-rawandi: What the hell is the deal with these people.

I kept this quote from another forum I take part in:

"What we have here is someone who has drunk deeply from the postmodernist tankard and can't stop belching."

I can't tell you how bitter I feel that I didn't think of that one myself! :-)

484. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117239 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 12:47 pm

al-rawandi: I am a fan for cooking the books and running somewhere without an extradition treaty.

Can you do us all a favour and take Omega with you next time please?

485. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117213 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Omega369 - Of course science doesn't know what new evidence might emerge later. Do you? Does your vicar? Do you even care? The difference between science and a belief is that the belief will be clung to both in the absence of any evidence and in the presence of evidence to the contrary; whereas science, when new evidence comes to light that contradicts or adds to theories that went before, will update its theories or abandon them altogether if the new evidence warrants it.

You may choose to call this "belief". But then, you may choose to call Coca-Cola Rioja if you want to. Though the label will be meaningless if you do.


I'm afraid you're making it up as you go along, based on absolutely nothing. If you have a religion, it's Omeganism, not Christianity or anything else.

486. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117203 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Al-rawandi - thanks for clarifying.

487. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117199 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 12:00 pm

al-rawandi: Belief is an absolute outcome, it is arrived at in a number of ways, and it is where truth and knowledge overlap

I'm not sure I've understood the point you're making here, al-rawandi. Belief may well be an absolute outcome, but it need have nothing whatsoever to do with either truth or knowledge. In fact, where religious belief is concerned, it has no legitimate claim to either.

488. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117192 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 11:50 am

omega369: Science is a belief too

I'm sorry, but that's really an extraordinarily silly thing to say. Science is a way of questioning the world and of testing the answers. To dismiss it as a belief - alongside beliefs such as Christianity, paganism or astrology - is to seriously misunderstand it and to do it a grave injustice. I thought you said you loved science? It would appear you haven't even been introduced to the object of your affections.

[EDITED to correct my own stupidity! - brain was thinking "astrology", fingers originally typed "astronomy". Ugh.]

489. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117177 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 11:31 am

Omega369The difference between Liberal Christianity and Conservative Christianity is phenomenal. You'd be surprised that they actually call themselves the same thing, its just you tend to hear the Conservative Christians and not the Liberal ones because the Liberal ones don't like to make a fuss.... thats liberalism for you. :-)

No, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Until a few years ago I was a liberal Christian myself. SO liberal, in fact, that I ultimately had to be honest with myself and accept that what I then believed wasn't Christianity at all, even though that was how I'd labelled myself. There can come a point where your beliefs have become so dilute that even "liberal Christianity" doesn't describe them - and yours don't sound like Christianity of any flavour.

OK, another question for you. Life is full of questions, and it is good to seek answers for them. But why do you seek them in religion? Why do you think religion holds them? Why aren't natural answers sufficient for you? And why do you give credence to religious answers, given that they are not in the least burdened by evidence?

Gaining knowledge about the world isn't about evolving your beliefs about it. It's about following where the evidence leads. There's a real world surrounding you, a real universe too. You don't have to make the answers up, you can find the real ones, answers that can be tested. Why do you feel the need for something beyond this?

490. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117165 by Paula Kirby on January 28, 2008 at 11:12 am

Omega, you may call yourself a Christian, of course - we're all free to view ourselves as we wish. But I would strongly suggest that most Christians would disagree with your description of yourself. You try telling most Christians that Christianity is basically a matter of being open to life and being kind to people, and they will laugh you out of court.

The heart of Christianity isn't being nice to people and having a sense of awe at the universe: it's having faith that Jesus was the son of God and he died specifically in order to take the consequences of your sin upon himself; and belief in his person, his divine nature and his sacrifice is absolutely required in order to avoid eternal damnation.

It doesn't sound as if you believe in any of those things - and that reflects well on you, for they're all clearly nonsense at best, and repugnant nonsense at worst.

To me you sound like an atheist who finds religion attractive.

There is absolutely nothing in your description of yourself that says "Christian". You have your own definition of god (which doesn't sound like a personal god at all); your own definition of what it means to be a Christian; and your own definition of morality. If anything, you have invented your own religion, and are choosing to call it Christianity.

Perhaps there are aspects of Christianity that appeal to you - church services can be very beautiful, and the sense of community can be very strong. But you dismiss Christian theology, you dismiss the Christian "holy" book, and you dismiss Christian teaching on sex and morality.

Let me turn the question around. In what sense are you NOT an atheist? Or, if not an atheist, in what sense are you not simply a New Age "seeker"?

491. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116972 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 11:44 pm

NMcC: With all due respect Paula, I think this is exactly the wrong thing to do in these circumstances. Especially the idea of 'confronting' the child. It doesn't take much imagination to percieve how such a course of action could be misconstrued and misinterpreted, and, moreover, deliberately so.

You may well be right! Especially since it transpires that the child involved isn't a close friend of DBA's son. What I like about the approach is that it deals directly with the person responsible, without escalating matters - a quiet word may have been enough: it's probably never crossed this child's mind that there's another way of looking at his actions. I agree that there would be those who'd misconstrue it, and that they'd do so deliberately - but I don't think such people would be unanswerable, by any stretch of the imagination. Still - I do agree that it would probably be asking for trouble, and that it's even more problematic given that DBA doesn't really know the child concerned ... So I'm quite open to persuasion that it's a terrible idea!

P.S. I read your article in the Free Inquiry magazine, Paula, it was excellent. Congratulations.

Thank you. :-)

492. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116854 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Double Bass Atheist: As a result, I want to do something, I just don't know what would do the most good, or even be effective for that matter.

I think there have been some very good suggestions already. Like others, I would be inclined to confront the child's parents. Though there might also be something to be said for having a quiet word with the child himself: explaining how upsetting this video could be for some people and asking him to show a bit more consideration. I'm not altogether certain I'd be able to resist asking him a few questions in the hopes of getting him to question what he'd been taught - I suspect his parents would object strongly to that, but it could lead to an interesting discussion with them about why it's ok for their ideas to be put brutally into children's heads, but not for yours to be put into them gently ...

The other line is certainly with the school. If the child was passing on this video in school time and/or on school premises, it is very much a school matter.

The thing is, when the assumption is that everyone believes this stuff, the silence of protestors will be taken as evidence of absence of protestors, making it more likely that such messages will be propagated again in the future. There may be other parents out there who feel just as strongly about this as you do, but who aren't speaking up for fear of being the only ones. Maybe you could sound a few of them out?

493. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116836 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Paula, you are my god

Thank you, Double Bass Atheist, but that's quite impossible. You see, I really do exist. ;-)

494. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116823 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm

LindseyMWright: There is no claim to truth.

Oh, I think there is. There is the claim that hell really exists, that it really is a place of torture and flames and agony and terror, and that people who don't accept Jesus really will end up there. These are all truth claims - and all based on absolutely zero evidence to support them. Imagine: filling children's heads with this monstrous nonsense when there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHATSOEVER to believe it to be true; and GOOD reason to believe that it isn't. It's despicable.

And you know the great irony here? The very people who most firmly believe in this contemptible twaddle are the very ones who are most likely to turn round and claim that evolution can be dismissed because it is "just a theory".

The day you fundies have even a thousandth of the evidence for the existence of hell that science has for the reality of evolution, is the day you may consider yourselves justified in putting these thoughts into children's heads (but I mean EVIDENCE, not Iron Age horror stories). Until then, how DARE you do it? Aren't you thoroughly ashamed of yourselves for inflicting this evil madness on your CHILDREN? You certainly should be.

No doubt you claim to love God with all your hearts, souls and mind. Yet at the same time you seem perfectly able to entertain the idea that this same god might one day quite deliberately set your children on fire for all eternity. How unnatural can you get? How can you POSSIBLY love a being who has the potential to make your children suffer like that? How can you POSSIBLY persuade yourself that that would be ok, because it would be justice? I want to shake you: can't you see how twisted and mad such thinking is? How can you possibly fall for this foul, evil, disgusting nonsense?

495. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116820 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Vinelectric: Theny you'll friend will have a nervous breakdown if you told her about the book that says you'll be fed boiling pus and that you'll be threaded ona 70 foot chain (mouth to anus) in hell whilst been dragged face down all along..

Interesting, isn't it - the religious have remarkably vivid imaginations when it comes to describing the torments of hell, but seem to be at a complete and utter loss when describing heaven. Has anyone on this site EVER heard a description of heaven that conjured up an image even half as detailed as the Koran's description of hell? Heaven seems a terribly insipid place, by comparison.

Humans are a fearful animal, it seems - far more able to conceive images of torture, desolation and torment than of joy and beauty. I've always assumed that religion first arose because early humans wanted some kind of explanation - ANY kind of explanation - for natural phenomena. But now I'm wondering whether it might not just have been simple curiosity that led to that desire, but the fear that came from not knowing. After all, it's clear that, in the absence of knowledge, the human imagination can concoct some very terrifying images indeed.

I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.

496. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #116801 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 1:17 pm

CShepGuy: This reminds me of some environmental gems during the Bush administration, like the "Clear Skies" initiative (which weakens the Clean Air act), and the "Healthy Forests" plan which makes it easier to clear cut forests. Is there a good term for this type of deception?

Lying?

497. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116791 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm

beebhack

1) I detest local radio"

... er... all of it? All the time?

All of it that I've ever heard, yes.

With respect, Paula: why?

In addition to what I wrote in comment 107 above, too much pop music, too little discussion, too superficial news coverage, and generally too much NOISE. Too much advertising, too - for non-BBC stations, that is. I think that just about covers it.

498. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116757 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 10:46 am

IanG: I repeat emphatically, Liz Green showed more engagement with a layman's understanding of the issue than we could reasonably have hoped for. I suspect that she really doesn't spend a lot of her time thinking about this stuff the way some of us might!

I agree she did a perfectly competent job, Ian. I didn't make my comment about detesting local radio because she'd been an incompetent interviewer - I just detest the whole tone of local radio: that determinedly cheerful, exaggerated, loud delivery. I always feel as if they're about to enjoin us to get up and do the okey-cokey any minute. It's no good - give me the dulcet tones of Radio 4 any day!

499. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116662 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 2:08 am

Ole: It would be interesting if anyone here who really knows religions could say more about what religions have ideas and fantasies about hell.
(Gehenna, etc.)

There was a discussion on this very topic - "The History of Hell" - on Radio 4's In Our Time programme a while back. You can listen to it via the programme website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20061221.shtml

This is the description:

A fiery vault beneath the earth or as Sartre put it, other people - it seems our ideas of hell are inevitably shaped by religious and cultural forces. For Homer and Virgil it's a place you can visit and return from, often a wiser person for it. With Christianity it's a one way journey and a just punishment for a sinful, unrepentant life.

Writers and painters like Dante and Hieronymus Bosch gave free rein to their imaginations, depicting a complex hierarchical world filled with the writhing bodies of tormented sinners. In the 20th century hell can be found on earth in portrayals of war and the Holocaust but also in the mind, particularly in the works of TS Eliot and Primo Levi.

So what is the purpose of hell and why is it found mainly in religions concerned with salvation? Why has hell proved so inspirational for artists through the ages, perhaps more so than heaven? And why do some ideas of hell require a Satan figure while others don't?

Contributors

Martin Palmer, Director of the International Consultancy on Religion, Education and Culture

Margaret Kean, Tutor and Fellow in English at St Hilda's College, Oxford

Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum

I've plugged "In Our Time" before, I know, but it's a truly brilliant programme. For those in the UK, it's well worth listening to (it's repeated on Thursday evenings, 9.30-10pm), and for those outside the UK, it's well worth keeping an eye on its website, since you can listen to every programme they've ever made that way. Science, religion, history, literature - the programme covers them all, and is always absolutely fascinating.

500. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116659 by Paula Kirby on January 27, 2008 at 1:38 am

RickM: I wonder if John will visit a museum.
I wonder if John will do some research on fossils.
I wonder if John will ask his priest, "what's this crap about no intermediate fossils?"
I wonder if John will stick his head in the sand and continue to be deluded.

I wonder if Paula will share her Bordeaux.

Hmmm, all but one of those possibilities are EXCEEDINGLY unlikely, I should say ...