501. The Out Campaign

Comment #61154 by Veronique on August 4, 2007 at 12:54 am

589. Comment #61148 by scottishgeologist on August 4, 2007 at 12:40 am

"To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" NIV

Why would anyone want to increase the pain of childbirth? What's the f**king point? All female live birth bearers give birth. That's life and its continuance. What was in these guys' heads? Were they jealous because they didn't control the procreative process? That they needed the 'unclean' women as the bearers of their progeny?

Why did the abrahamic religions decide to demonise women? Was it about the intrinsic power of conception and birth that women had? Was it about the inability of the big boasters to produce their own progeny?

Shit, Corylus, of course I will have some tea and calm down and listen to Bach, but it doesn't help in trying to understand how this crap happened. And the Flea believes this absolutely. Doesn't it make you despair? It certainly makes me despair.

Despairingly
V

Edit isn't someone going to say 'Well done, V, you have learnt to block quote' Your jibes at the Flea got me looking at it:-) Wasn't that difficult after all:-) Love you all!!

502. The Out Campaign

Comment #61151 by Veronique on August 4, 2007 at 12:42 am

Baeoz

Where did this problem with sex and vaginas come from? Was it just Paul and the fact that he couldn't 'get any'? What is the date that Paul is supposed to have written his stuff?

Yeah, I have read about the mistranslation from 'young woman' (or maid as in maiden, presumably unpenetrated) to virgin.

Ah, Eve. Not even a person really, created from Adam's rib. Subset. Subhuman. Yes, of course, she of no brains ate an apple from a tree because a talking snake seduced her inferior mind (hi, Henri!). So it all had to be earlier than Paul, didn't it?

The basis for this rubbish must have come earlier than Paul, surely. When is Genesis meant to have been penned (by other hopelessly inadequate men who couldn't get any – oops, my presumption here)? What about all the begats - the flawed genealogy that isn't consistent in that silly book. Did they begat for god? Or did they just need to get their rocks off, like most people? And then invent piety to explain their own sexual urges?

Masturbation – it will send you blind, darlin'. Where did that come from? Is it that people just didn't like flesh? Their own flesh? So bizarre. No wonder I don't get it.

Why is it that people can even entertain this crock of shit?? Let alone believe it? I am flummoxed. I tell you true. I just don't get it.

The Catholic Church! Phew. Talk about seize the day. They did well, didn't they? Hijacked the whole lot, the bastards. And there were bastards. How many of those holy popes had kids? What about the Borgias? Yuckoh! And they all decreed that they were the descendants of Peter the Rock? Where do they get off! What a load of codswallop and control.

Al Hilali. Shunt him off these shores. He's a dangerous maniac. You are right, men tend to blame women for their own carnality. It's so wrong. Scanty dress also applies to men's dick-stickers. Oooh – more than once have I looked at that scantily covered packet:-) What's the difference? It appears to me that each sex tries to attract the opposite one.

You could be right about Paul. Maybe he couldn't get it up, maybe he couldn't hold his load, maybe the women (gossipping about the men) had spread the word about Paul:-) So he writes a gospel condemning sex? How sick and how normal. And people believed him. How gullible. I bet the women didn't think much of his gospel. But under-trodden women have to know their place, don't they? Snigger, snigger.

Oh god, Baeoz, I cannot understand any of this shit. It borders on socio-pathology and schizophrenia.

Thank you for trying to explain it to me
V

503. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61140 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm

26. Comment #60810 by AdrianB on August 2, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Everything that I read or hear from this man always includes the phrase "I used to be an atheist....."

I have enormous difficulty understanding how someone can go from disbelief in faith to a later belief in faith.

I suspect that McGrath was brought up within a christian household and absorbed the basic tenets of the christian faith.

Remember what Uni campuses are like (or were, when I was there; McGrath's not that much younger than I). Hotbeds of revolution, rebellion, philosophical argumentation and, of course throwing off the old, adopting the new.

My personal thoughts are that McGrath was swept up into what he perceived as atheism for the duration of his student days.

Somewhere, somehow, as he grew older, he grew back into his original belief structure. I wouldn't have a clue about the catalyst that brought him back to 'faith'. A woman, some old friend, some distress or tragedy, who would know.

He's a biologist as well. I also have immense difficulty getting my head around the concept of a religious scientist. But, hey! it happens.

So, no I don't think he's actually lying, though he could be. What he calls atheism I think would bear little similarity to what, you, I and others on this site would agree on.

Saying 'I used to be an atheist', I think is a furphy and I would guess he uses that sentence in an attempt to gain credibility and some kudos for having seen through the emptiness and bleakness of atheism. Just my guess, after all.

What do you reckon happened? Interesting stuff. He's not the only one who says it either. Straaaange stuff:-)

Cheers
V

504. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61138 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Baeoz

I think you are right. I just checked the hundreds of comments on the Westboro Baptist Church article site (I had missed it in June) and I have posted onto The Out Campaign (RD) thread regarding some thoughts.

I can't really get a handle on the Flea, but I have realised that he is a pretty disturbed character. He seems to need to post here. I won't lose it again with him. It's just not fair.

Henri, on the other hand...:-)hehehe.

Time for a drink
V

505. The Out Campaign

Comment #61137 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 10:16 pm

182. Comment #60014 by Quetzalcoatl on July 31, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I have been reading the comments after watching that awful video. I totally missed it in June – possibly because I was preparing tax returns. Or maybe 'cause I had come across the Phelps' and WBC in earlier articles and couldn't be bothered with another one.

Anyway, I have been staggered by the Flea's posts on there. The comments by Billy about the uncleanness of women as recorded in the Wholly Babble, the Dr's little joke about his cock and Logicel's take on why the Flea was so upset, made me think.

I have to rely on you ex-religites to set me straight – you know I don't understand this shit very well:-)

The whole thing about the virgin birth has to do with 'un-defilement', right? Is it reasonable to assume that the religites couldn't bear to think of their saviour as having been produced in a normal way, because then he would be defiled, unclean, born of sin, even conceived in sin. He would make a lousy saviour, yes? So they make up the whole thing about the holy-ghost impregnating Mary without sex, in order to raise the status of her child to that of saviour. Is that about it?

That's pathetic. As Logicel said, people find it difficult to imagine their parents (and maybe, specifically their mothers) as having hot, sweaty sex. As if, in some way, it diminishes them. What about Jesus being born amid all the blood and gore that accompanies childbirth? Any 7 day restriction on purity there?

The other, really glaring thing about the Flea, is that he has absolutely no sense of humour or the ridiculous. I think it is because I read all the comments at one sitting for a change, even tried to read all of his:-) that I have finally become aware of that. What a sad man.

I also realised that he probably uses RD's site to give vent to some very deep-seated, unconscious psychological distress that he just can't do on his own church site. What a hole he has dug for himself! Looks like we have got him forever. Have we got a good shrink here?

Thanks Q for posting the link. Good work out:-)

BTW, in LeeC's link to rude place names, why was Bangkok left out:-)

Cheers
V

506. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61114 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Has anyone read what PZ wrote in 2004 about his lack of religion? This quote is towards the end of his post.

Says it all really, for me.

But here's what I do despise: self-righteous religious dogmatists who use their bibles as clubs to oppress. Religion based on fear of hell and threats of damnation, with congregations full of schadenfreude. People so overwhelmed with the nonsense of their faith that they've lost all perspective, and have let it dictate politics and science and other aspects of reality. The godly who think their religion is a justification for dictating what other people should do, rather than what they themselves should do. People who think virtue is solely the provenance of faith, and assume that believing in Jesus is enough to make them good. Any religion that is used to argue in favor of killing people is simply evil. I can't abide the pathological religion that is dominating the politics and media of our country right now.

McGrath is a big bag of hot air. Like most, if not all religious apologists, and on this site as well, he is neither consistent, truthful nor self-critical. Bollocks to him! Where are our resident twits by the way? Has the Flea gone to Bulgaria already? Biz must be away as well. Bliss!!

Cheerfully
V

507. The Out Campaign

Comment #61081 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Good morning all. Cloudy, rain predicted and we need it badly. Dam levels average about 40% now.

567. Comment #61003 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 9:44 am

Jolly good point, Flag! Do you think that the 3 game restriction was put in place by paternalistic (caring) blokes some long time ago? I have no idea. I wonder whether women were consulted on it and took advantage?

You can see some players start to fade around the third game, both men and women. Some get their second wind, but some don't really pick up, do they?

You are also right that it gives Henri's argument (?) a boost:-). However, he hasn't addressed my queries except with an incredibly dismissive (he must realise I am a woman:-)) and pompous sentence. He needs to define the (loaded) words he uses.

What's Spinal Tap about. You are right, I don't know it at all. Should I hire it from the video store?

I love tennis, Yorker. We only get to see it at reasonable hours when it's played here. Other times, my whole sleeping pattern has to change to accommodate matches played in the northern hemisphere (as most of them are).

And eepist - where are the strength to weight ratio studies? You know how Henri is, he'll jump on you:-)

edit your posts have just come through eepist.

Yorker - I can't stand listening to Sharapova's screaming:-), hit the mute button:-)

Cheers
V

508. The Out Campaign

Comment #60981 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 8:28 am

Bullshit, Henri. One dismissive sentence addresses my queries? Arrogant, useless, gob stopping wank. Nothing wrong with sexy, heaps wrong with sexism. You expose your stupidity here.

The trouble is that your one sentence is so honed to minimalism that it says absolutely nothing at all.

Mindless, really.

509. The Out Campaign

Comment #60973 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 8:10 am

That's right Henri, don't address the questions. You are starting to behave like the Flea. Even your post starts to look like his.

Thanks, Yorker for your post. I didn't know about your brother, but it was worth a try. Thank heavens, you father finally accepted him. I am pleased at your and your bothers' protection of him, you big bruisers you:-). And we are all strange, Yorker. Every single one of us. Vive la difference. Like Steve, I tend to see sexuality as somewhat fluid and on a continuum. Changes are and that's life.

I know of parents who have had nothing to do with their homosexual children for decades. Very sad, very intolerant. I also know a Hindu who refuses to speak his daughter's name because she got together with a man of her choice rather than her father's. As far as he is concerned she may as well be dead. 25 years of denial. Tragic. He doesn't get to see his grandchildren, loses his daughter, is bitter, and, estranged from his wife. Wooo. What a way to live.

Go, Charlou, you tell him!! He won't listen or take it on board. He's another Flea after all.

It's no good my asking him to define terms, words or anything else, he will merely weasel his way out or just ignore what he doesn't want to address. He doesn't want his precious and sexist statements called into question. And, of course, he will denigrate me and you and anyone else who would try to pin him down. Another wanker, my dear. Who gives a flying f**k. Not I. Just another set of posts I will no longer bother to read. Do I care? Not on your nelly!

There are some lovely people posting here, Henri isn't one of them. He is merely concerned with trying to look good, smart, well read and discursive. It doesn't wash really. But he doesn't realise that; neither does the Flea. And the Flea is not even well read. And Henri isn't self-critical or honest. Attempting to defend precarious positions often leaves one with no position to defend.

1.03am here and my cats want to go to bed. See you all in the morning. Selamat datang everyone.

Night, night.
V

510. The Out Campaign

Comment #60853 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 2:27 am

Thanks all. Where's Henri? It's not that far in latitudes. I know I am 10 hours east from GMT. Maybe he can't compute. I don't know. Who would know?

Cheers
V

511. The Out Campaign

Comment #60839 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 1:11 am

Corylus

Thanks for that. My brother (4 years older than I; he had the advantage, bugger him) and I used to trawl through dictionaries over breakfast for words that were uncommonly used in ordinary language.

I adore my loopy, eccentric brother and his undeniable intelligence. I also adore the fact that he never disparages anyone he knows. He would take brook with me and my comments on these threads.

He is circumspect in his comments and has a prodigious memory. He's a public epidemiologist and a student of political history. Ooh, he swims a lot and tries to play the trombone. He is one of the nicest people I know.

I'll be seeing him in November and I look forward to staying with him for a week or so. He is the only person I believe when he says he has never told a lie. He hasn't.

Cheers
V

512. The Out Campaign

Comment #60834 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 1:00 am

God, he goes on doesn't he? You would think he'd get a life, wouldn't you?

Bleating the old ram's horn again. Give me a full orchestra and a bit of contrapuntal harmony. It goes a long way. Better than this stuff, can't create a more harmonious script, bugger, caught by the edicts. Bugger, have to stay within the flags here.

It won't last, you know - only the best and far reaching ones survive the century changes:-). A bit of creative interpretation went a loooong way. Don't ask me to listen to the puerile, simplistic songs of TWATT church.

Give me Bach, who knows how to soar, without stuffing up the way sound works on our ears. Disciplined, he was; aware of the basis of his sustenance, he was. Clever bloke, I think and with a beautiful gift for the sound of music. Ooh, I could almost worship him. note to self - be careful V, don't get sucked in by any old coot.

Cheers:-)
V

513. The Out Campaign

Comment #60824 by Veronique on August 3, 2007 at 12:35 am

Of course, you are right Steve. How many of us haven't been involved with same sex partners for, at least, a short time. Come, someone, guess a percentage. Challenge time!! Set the criteria and let's have a go.

Public school in the UK and elsewhere, choirboys and priests. I have had two short homosexual relationships. They didn't last because my preference was for men. (Shit, did I say that?? Gasp. I am celibate now and prefer the company of women. They seem so much understandable these days.) They were great women though!

Relationships of whatever sexual flavour, have to involve emotions, a seemingly common mentality, interests and passions, a bit of lust thrown in and pleasure in each other's company. Sometimes, these things just wane and are then experienced with another person. So what?

Maybe Yorker's brother is bisexual. Maybe I am/was. Maybe he's not. Who cares? Difficult to know, really, because monogamy, trust, need and excitement always are components in the game:-)

You're fine, mate
V

514. The Out Campaign

Comment #60814 by Veronique on August 2, 2007 at 11:57 pm

509. Comment #60811 by BAEOZ on August 2, 2007 at 11:40 pm


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Thank you so much Baeoz. You have made my day!

I have never read Nietzche and I have too much to do now, to take time out to read him.

Great stuff
V

515. The Out Campaign

Comment #60809 by Veronique on August 2, 2007 at 11:14 pm

489. Comment #60782 by Henri Bergson on August 2, 2007 at 8:39 pm

….of course women are worse at sport.

What does 'worse' mean? Worse than men? Not as strong, granted. Maybe not as much endurance but I wouldn't really think so. But 'worse'?

There's some sort of value judgement in there somewhere that is not warranted.

Exceptions do not disprove the rule.

What's the 'rule'? That has been decided, has it? Does the 'rule' have the overtone of that value judgement as well? Whatever the 'rule' is exceptions certainly do not disprove it and that applies to both men and women.

Or has it to do with this

I used the word 'feeble' to mean inducing weak muscularity, weak immune system, weak motor-responses and co-ordination, etc.

Really? 'Inducing'? Gosh!! What's with the words you use? Huh? Making out on the annonymity of internet posting eh?

Now define 'weak', if you will. Careful how you qualify it. Then please, give some evidence supporting a woman's weak immune system (I am still presuming that your bias is there and you really mean weaker than a man) as compared with a man's immune system.

Studies supporting weak co-ordination of females as compared with males, please.

Muscularity or musculature? Muscularity seems to carry the subtle (or actually not subtle at all) undertone again. Musculature might be a less derogatory word to use. Please spare a thought for the commonly used word 'feeble' and think of another word that doesn't have judgemental connotations. Aah well. You could have worded the whole thing in less judgemental terms. Then I may have taken you seriously. Hey, you didn't take the Flea seriously did you? Fundamental mistake, wasn't it?

Tell me are you from an Abrahamic background? Not just culturally, you understand.

Cheers
V

516. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60799 by Veronique on August 2, 2007 at 9:18 pm

5. Comment #60697 by tieInterceptor on August 2, 2007 at 5:43 pm

I think I'm pretty close to your stated criteria (but I am learning all the time:-))

Spot on, mate.

I really like PZ's writing, it's just different from Dawkins. I am so glad he's coming on board with the writers' team. One more:-)

Crazy, thanks for that link. Haven't seen it for ages. She's very good and very funny:-)

Cheers
V

517. The Out Campaign

Comment #60777 by Veronique on August 2, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Henri

I was brought up in a culturally Christian society and now live in one. The moral imperatives that I absorbed from my parents, teachers, law enforcement and political agencies were part of the background of my life experience.

Sure you can dismiss them as the result of a Judeo-Christian legacy. It's a bit simplistic though. My early years were spent with very different cultures in a non Judeo-Christian society. I have noted before that the similarities between cultures and their peoples are far more evident that the differences. You'll have to do better than that.

Do the gay people you know help their siblings mate? What kind of absurd notion is that? Was that a rhetorical question?

No, silly, you didn't read or interpret it properly, hahaha:-)

Homosexuality is a result of 'feeble' genes? You have to be joking. Do you want to try to specify which genes precisely? Read Goldy's post above yours, at 339.

I used the word 'feeble' to mean inducing weak muscularity, weak immune system, weak motor-responses and co-ordination, etc

Yorker's youngest brother is one of the five boys in his family who walked down the street together and no one ever 'f***ked with them. He's alive, strong, possibly excellent at sport with good eye-hand co-ordination. So, I'd add non-effeminate to the list of differing qualities apparent in the homosexual community. Funny, that: homosexuals seem to display the same wide variety of 'types' that the heterosexual community does:-). Why am I not surprised! Henri you seem to be digging a deeper hole for yourself. Tut, tut.

As to girls not being good at sport or able to throw a ball, that's a nonsense. A quick flip through your mind, recalling female sporting people might have a salutary effect. Three of my female cousins hit the Australian Women's hockey team. Pretty neat feat, I always thought. Swimmers, tennis players, basketball teams, track and field; I think women acquit themselves pretty well in the sporting arena.

Charlou

I don't think that Haggard believed any of the shit he used to sprout. My understanding is that he was born to atheistic parents and had a rabidly atheist grandparent, though that possibly had little to do with it. I reckon he, like Joseph Smith and others before him, saw a way to fleece the gullible public and make a motzer. And, he did!! An out and out charlatan.

Cheers
V

518. The Out Campaign

Comment #60692 by Veronique on August 2, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I woke up this morning and thought, ooh, that wasn't a good post at all.

I just lost it, sorry everyone. And thank you Yorker and Baeoz for understanding that I spat the dummy. I think the first time I replied to one of the idiot's posts (months ago now), I did much the same thing. I promised myself I wouldn't do it again. Must subdue unseemly reactions.

Just a slip. Smiles wryly.

Quetz, thank you for 'tea' acceptance. Irish Breakfast tea got me going this morning:-)

Cheers
V

519. The Out Campaign

Comment #60465 by Veronique on August 2, 2007 at 2:31 am

263. Comment #60173 by The Wee Flea on August 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

I can't believe that I have been sucked into commenting on a wee fleapost!! Whip me, shame me, put electrodes on my head!!

What on earth do you think you are saying, you incredible dork?

I think that human beings are born with a corrupt nature – but I think they are judged because of what they do, not what they are born with. Does that help?

No it f**cking doesn't! You self-satisfied, arrogant prick!! (Oh Yorker, I am shouting at the screen again. I need a cup of Traditional Afternoon Tea before I go see the de-briefer).

Why on earth do you think that newborns are corrupt? Do you mean my kittens, my fish fry, or only humans? You appear to be someone who (I nearly typed 'that' which would remove you as a thinking, compassionate and humanistic animal) thinks all other species are ho hum and that human primates are the pinnacle, You arrogant c**t. How dare you put humans on a pedestal and diminish other species!

You think you are intelligent, can make a living amongst those you can persuade to part with their hard earned cash on a weekly basis to fund your basic needs? You are a financial and emotional parasite on the gullibility of others. You disgust me. As do all of you holier-than-thou religious pontificators.

All other animals are honest about their purpose. Pass the genes on, keep the species going. Oh, there is likely to be a bit of modification along the way. We'll cope, not a problem. We'll cope better in the race for survival. Go babies. Our blessings with thee.

You!! You have the temerity to pretend a sarcasm to other posters rather than try to debate their points. Wow! I am getting wound up here.

You are the most abominable of posters (have you paid you dues yet? – I would bet not, you mouthy free loader).

You are, without doubt, the most irritating and BS person I have had the misfortune to come across. Biz comes a close second. The other wankers appear to be one-thread wonders.

You have a problem Flea. Go debrief yourself. Listen to some logic, read about how we got here. Educate yourself, you redneck (apologies to all workers who are employed in the sun – I am not targeting you as a group), JUST this idiot. He lives in his Ivory Tower that he built in order to look down (not just metaphorically) on what he perceives as the unwashed and illiterate proletariat.

OK; end of crossness. Can you loathe him or just detest him? Loathing, I think, has to do with ideologies, detesting has to do with the protagonists (or apologists) of such ideologies.

I am a Christian and I admit I could be wrong Whack yourself up there as He who Knows Everything. Welcome John Cleese- Basil couldn't understand it either. but he did a good job being a proper dork (nd he knew what he was doing - unlike you).

Go suck yourself David. No one else will. Except those who fund your tea and scones (yeah, I know Yorker, I probably don't pronounce scones to your liking).

Angry again at your BS, flea – I am so pissed off at having to say something about your crap. I am more than pissed off at giving you air space.

V

520. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60432 by Veronique on August 2, 2007 at 12:01 am

You have a point Keith. The ridiculousness of the Wholly Babble may well become more apparent in modern parlance. The trouble is, with each interpretation, meanings subtly (and not so subtly) change.

Imagine what has happened to that book over the many translations along the way until it got into English. Same with the OT and the Qu'un.

I read a quite interesting article about a couple of scholarly theological people who maintain that in the original words of the Qu'un, the word (whatever it was) actually meant white raisins not virgins. If true, the moslem extremists are killing themselves and others to receive a handful of raisins. Sad, isn't it?

A similar error is postulated by a christian (maybe more than one) theologian that virgin (as in Mary) had been mistranslated from the word for young woman. Incredible, isn't it, what thin threads people rely on for their faith.

I know there are many others. Try Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless.

Ah, Shakespeare. I have seen several modernisations of his plays. While impressed, I am addicted to his language and poetry. Tell me, how would you modernise these two:

Henry V – Act IV, Sc.III – his call to arms at Agincourt.

Macbeth – Act V, Sc.V – when Seyton tells him that Lady Macbeth is dead.

I am interested, I assure you. Oh, and Portia's main speech in The Merchant of Venice – um, Act IV, Sc.I. I couldn't do it, but I'd be mighty pleased if you can. If you think it's too boring here, please feel free to PM me. I get an email notification of any PMs that are sent to me.

Sob, I have to admit that I didn't get that far past Baroque music. I am stuck, aren't I? Teleman gives me the spine tingles, Bach breaks me up; he is so clever. Mozart transports me. I have grown up and into Chopin, you'll be pleased to know.

Cheers
V

521. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60425 by Veronique on August 1, 2007 at 10:33 pm

Yorker – you are right about feeling better doing things. I got myself so upset at what was happening in the world, I was a mess for about two weeks straight. My friends noticed it and called it the stress of impotence.

My time had been freed up by retirement; my time now to do what I wanted instead of what I had to do for my client base. I had read TGD and The Trial of Socrates in November. I was in for an awful shock as I learned to trawl the internet for news and found this site (of course). I was a sponge soaking everything up willy-nilly. I couldn't get enough. I subscribed to news sites, you guys have led me all over the web. Josh's articles sent me everywhere as well. The news sites, all just overwhelming and unsustainable for my health and well being. It was .... well, I am sure you know:-).

Everything coalesced into this mixture of shaking anger, fear of what was escalating in the world outside my door, town, country etc. The feeling of impotence just grabbed me and I needed to do something.

Being an old chook, I knew that this too would pass and I would be OK again:-) I had decided to retire early in the year. I took down my little advertising sign; that was that.

In the middle of my shaking period, a friend remarked that the sign's timber frame was still at the front and that it looked like a cross and people would to know where the body was.

This lightened me up considerably and I took another sign I had that had a small blackboard for people to leave me messages. Up it went and I started posting on 7th January. The shaking stopped. My letter writing started again. I was operable again. Whew!

My evangelical neighbour suggested I get a bigger board so that people to read the posts and I could get more words up. So, I did. My printing is so large now, that people can read without getting out of their cars. They just pull up, read and go on their merry ways.

Now, the situations haven't changed outside my door, but my attitude has. Posting is a great way to relieve such stress and there are some wonderful results. I feel good, dade dade da.

Cheers
V

522. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60386 by Veronique on August 1, 2007 at 6:06 pm

297. Comment #60381 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Aw, shucks, Baeoz:-). I am getting closer to the blog. Any week now.

Shit, the telly's on and I have just seen an ad on the ABC for Compass this Sunday. It's on the fundamentalists. Let's not miss it!

Cheers
V

523. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60377 by Veronique on August 1, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Well done BAEOZ and Goldy!! I am impressed. Somehow I don't think Biz and the Flea will do the same:-)

284. Comment #60135 by Yorker on August 1, 2007 at 5:37 am

You crack me up Yorker:-) Yes 'towy' does mean 'feisty'. Now I know you are a big bruiser, I will never call you little again. Mind you, down here 'little' and 'shit' go together as a phrase, much like 'tiresome little baby':-) Doesn't have much to do with size, eh? I am delighted that I am the first person (and now, probably the only one) to have called you little. Be careful though. You don't know IQHQ's size. He may tower over you:-) I love 'petulant little plonker' though.

I tend to agree with you about our generation. 1943 was the middle of the war and while we were much less affected in Australia, our lives were certainly constrained by it and, of course, food was short. By 1948 I was in Singapore. I remember Yank tanks thundering up the Causeway to Malaya – a bit sobering. A lot of Brits in uniform were housed in Singapore; you couldn't go anywhere with coming across the military. No TV, pap type games. We were very resourceful and we read a lot.

I went to a British school though most of my pals were Indian, Chinese and Malay. I was fortunate in that I learnt a lot about the differences between cultures and the similarities between people. That has stood me in good stead. Racism isn't in my lexicon. These days I see a lot of racism in Australia and it is apparent throughout the world with shifting populations.

289. Comment #60181 by John Hyperion on August 1, 2007 at 8:44 am

Not that old John:-) I have t-shirts with things written on them. All good fun. I am about to design some of my own as suggested by posters here. Even better fun.

291. Comment #60239 by Maverick on August 1, 2007 at 11:12 am

You are right. Not all my atheist friends are interested in science. I stand corrected for making a global statement.

I wasn't suggesting promoting atheism. I did use the word 'appear'. What is being promoted here is reason, not atheism. Yes, a lot of people, both atheists and non-atheists are not necessarily interested in being rational or reasonable. With the exception of the religious posters here, the others are just not contributing to this site. I am the only person in my circle of friends and acquaintances who posts here. Some of them read some comment threads and articles when they visit me, but would never think of making their own comments.

If you want to promote atheism, you should be promoting why religion is unnecessary and non-rational. Corrected your spelling, sorry:-)

I do. I post onto a blackboard I erected at the front of my house. Every quote I can find that is critical of the irrationality of religious belief gets posted onto that board. I have mentioned elsewhere that I now have regulars who pull up in front of the house to read the posts.

My milkman loves the quotes. The saw miller who provided the timber for the board is delighted. The early dog-walkers stop and have a gander. My electrician drops quotes in to me. My landscape gardener has realised that he is actually an atheist and has been harbouring a deep resentment at the lies he was told as a child. He borrows books from me and we sit on the deck with a bottle of red and discuss all manner of issues. My plumber decided to tell me that he didn't believe in god, but allowed people to assume he did for the sake of peace (and business, I would guess).

A friend of mine watched Zeitgeist, the movie, here at my place and was utterly gobsmacked by all the references to Christ like, as distinct from Jesus, figures throughout history. She is well on her way to letting go of her faith that the 'Universe' monitors her life. She read my copy of The Selfish Gene, then Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. She's getting there.

I grab every opportunity I can to ridicule the religiosity of our politicians in my letters to our paper. I write a lot of letters berating the stupid policies that our wing-nut pollies legislate. Fortunately the editor doesn't edit any of my letters.

I am doing my bit, Rick. I will wear the t-shirt and engage as many people as I can in conversation. Trust me, I am not a politician:-)

Cheers
V

524. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #60336 by Veronique on August 1, 2007 at 4:05 pm

It appears that you are right DDave. I have been saying the same thing in as many different ways as I can. So has everyone else.

Now, it looks like fides has gone and this thread will probably finish. It has transferred to the OUTCampaign where the Wee Flea is back, fresh from his summer camp, still sprouting all manner of illogical and incomprehensible tosh:-).

Thanks gr8

Ah well....
Cheers
V

525. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60092 by Veronique on August 1, 2007 at 1:34 am

Here's my take on wankerism.

Why do people like Maverick and that high IQ person make the assumption that atheism is or is not something to promote. What is being promoted here is reason. It is just that people of reason, rationality and having a scientific bent also appear to go under the banner of atheism.

I agree that atheism is actually lack of belief in supernatural explanations for the advent (ooh, there's a nice religiously hijacked term) of the world. The only way that this lack can be promoted is through an understanding of the growing evidence that is obvious in scientific curiosity, discovery, theory and evidence.

I am an atheist and have been all my life. If atheism is the word that applies generally to those who understand a more rational approach to how the world and the universe came into being then atheism is one of those cover-all monikers that unite us. So atheism is what we appear to promote.

However, that is just a word (defined as I have done on different threads utilising SOD's generally accepted definition).

I have to agree with Yorker here. I have been reading his posts for many months. He's a towy little (and as old as I am) shit who doesn't back away from addressing those who misrepresent him. And neither he should. And I would hope that I don't either. I am constantly pissed off with people who take my (and other's) words out of context and re-present them through another mental filter. So is Yorker and how many others? The threads are full of 'hey, wait a minute, I didn't say that, you have misinterpreted my comment'.

I guess this often happens on written threads where responding posters can manipulate whatever they want to promote either by vilification or totally deliberate misrepresentation (maybe not so deliberate:-)just thoughtlessness and mindlessness).

I am not defending Yorker; he is more than capable of doing that himself. My bitch is with the Wee Fleas, Fides and many others who wilfully convolute posts and twist them to suit their own purposes. No wonder Yorker, Billy, Quetz, Russell, Richard Morgan, Steve99 and countless others get pissed off (sorry to others I haven't mentioned – you know who you are and you know I value your posts).

I understand that there are 12,000 odd subscribers to the RD site. Obviously not that many post comments. Some don't even bother with postings on these threads, they go to the forums instead (maybe a better idea with more considered and reasoned debate). The comment threads seem to cater for a lot of ill-considered and vituperative ripostes and knee jerk reactions.

I don't know how many of you subscribe to news websites and take advantage of the news items and op-eds that are re-posted there from many other sites. I subscribe to Alternet (humph), Information Clearing House, Common Dreams, Crikey, IPCC, Edge, The Real News and a number of others. Each year these independent groups mount a campaign for funds from their readers and subscribers because they refuse advertising dollars that may compromise their content. I value these sites and annually, I give each of them money.

Can I ask a question here – how many of you contribute financially to RD's site in order to help keep it operating? Annually? One off? Never?

You enjoy reading the re-posted articles and thoroughly enjoy making your views known on this site. Let's work out how many of you actually contribute to its upkeep. A number of you disparage RD and what he is attempting to do. Why? If you are not prepared to give the site some dosh, don't you think you should re-evaluate what you are actually taking advantage of? A free forum where you can say whatever the hell you like without paying some sort of dues?

12,000 members of this site – at $100 per member per year to pay for a free-for-all? It's not that much. Just bloody do it.

The other sites I subscribe to are paid for with advertising dollars and don't ask subscribers to contribute. As Yorker says, you have to wade through the adverts and hope that you don't end up with *spam, despite *spam filters.

Be a little more cognisant of what you are being given as articles on which you have freedom to comment.

Whew! – I do not like free-loaders of any persuasion. End of rant. Get a grip (and on your cheque book as well). Give the RD site what it needs to keep going. Money, you idiots. You merely make comments, he is out there, trying on behalf of all of you. Kudos to him, give him a fair go (you can tell that I am an Aussie:-))

I am also generous, honest, appreciative and pay dues where they are needed and pleased I was brought up to be that way. Flea – give some money to this forum where you keep posting. Your church gets its tithes. Swan some across to this forum from which you derive so much (weird) pleasure.

Fides – you got a good workout. Pay your dues.

Biz – you have utilised this site for ages – even developed a following (joke:-)). You owe RD's site some dues for being able to post interminable religious and utterly incomprehensible crap on this site (don't you love Billy's new avatar?). Pay up or fuck off.

Yes, Yorker, I am with you and it's not just our common age:-)

Cheers
V

526. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59895 by Veronique on July 31, 2007 at 3:35 am

252. Comment #59881 by BillySands on July 31, 2007 at 2:38 am

Billy- you might be interested to know that Wee Flea has returned.

Where? Is he Fides in disguise?

Hahaha, Billy, I like you more and more!!

Maybe fides can't do the two pony trick and post on both threads at the same time with two different monikers. Wee Flea is definitely on the other thread, but, as you know, I no longer try to talk with him. Maybe I should give up with fides as well. It doesn't seem to go anywhere, does it?

I have to again say thank you for your help with an understanding these religious types. It's only because of you guys who have survived and come out the other side of indoctrination, that I am able to get even a semblance of understanding of the religious mind.

It's not that I am stupid (at least I don't think I am), I just find the whole stuff incomprehensible in the 21st century.

Go on, take the Wee Flea on; you have always done it well. I can't be bothered, but I love reading your posts about him:-).

I have bought two T-shirts and will wear them with acuity. Good fun:-) With a serious undertone:-)

Cheers
V

527. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59813 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 5:54 pm

241. Comment #59781 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm

My point was that RD says that faith is childish whilst at the same time maintains that it is not just wrong but wicked to say that a child has faith.

I thought, by now, that you would have understood that RD calls it wicked to label a child as a christian child, a marxist child etc. He doesn't distinguish between religious and other ideologies. He most certainly doesn't say that children can have a proper conceptual understanding of any ideology. He focusses on christianity because that religion is the one he knows best. But his charge is not exclusive to christianity.

I ask again, what problem do you have with the usage of the words childish and childlike? They are not the same and can't be used interchangeably.

Since you claim you do understand, can you please address the points I made in my post where I cite the SOD definitions of the two words and my subsequent following points? It is comment 210 on this page.

I would appreciate it.
V

528. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59803 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 5:19 pm

241. Comment #59781 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm

I find it interesting that when I've disagreed with you here, you've questioned not just my state of mind but whether it is complete or not. You're not trying to stifle my freedom of thought by insult are you. If you are, I think it's very childish!

Why do you so wilfully skew what is being said? I was talking about compartmentalism. The reference to Billy had to do with a much earlier post and he understood what I meant. Why can't you.

I am not out to insult you or your intelligence. I have been genuinely attempting to understand the religious mind. You have not been of as much help in this as the others.

And is your odd response to my post the only thing you have to say? I thought there were far more interesting points to address than a dummy-spit at what you perceived I had said. Just out of interest, did anyone else have fides take on what I was saying about compartmentalising? If so, then I have some serious work to do in the way I communicate.

You don't seem to answer pertinent points made by some posters here. You skip over questions and only address what you want to and then appear to misrepresent the poster. Why is that?

Perplexed
V

529. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59775 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 3:54 pm

230. Comment #59718 by fides_et_ratio on July 30, 2007 at 11:44 am

If you find that athiesm offers you some answers please start a thread, I would genuinely like to read what you say.

You keep on misunderstanding what people are saying here. Atheism doesn't offer answers. Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural being; a god. What is it about you that you can't 'get' this? To me it seems quite wilful of you. Dictionaries give you consensus definitions of atheism. It's not that hard to follow. It's like your inability to distinguish between childlike and childish.

I can only assume that you cannot mentally conceive of a position that simply doesn't require belief in the supernatural. So I come back to the proposition that you compartmentalise your brain. It's not impossible to break down that compartmentalisation. Billy got his whole brain back:-) as many others have. It's no good dismissing the posters here who have come through superstitious beliefs to the position of reason and rationality as not having had enough faith. It begs the question of how some people can eventually see through the irrationality of belief and some can't.

I suppose you could try to mount an argument that the reason I have no belief is that I wasn't taught, indoctrinated or otherwise inculcated with religious images, myths, worship and fear. Unfortunately, that puts you right back into the religious 'meme' being passed on, generation to generation. I escaped any such heavy and frightening indoctrination. Judging by what is said here, I should consider myself very fortunate indeed. As NB said, religious belief is quite sinister in its exposition.

And, thank you to everyone who has posted here, answering my heartfelt plea for understanding the religious mind:-). I am sincerely grateful to you and you have helped me. It is difficult to understand as I have not any background in religion at all.

The interest of everyone here is in the sciences that, more and more, are able to describe rational, testable views of the origins of our real world. That real world is of intense interest to us, not a fanciful story line that humans concocted thousands of years ago, when we knew very little about the machinations of our world and the universe.

I can understand that we tended to hold the sun, moon, stars in high regard and anthropomorphise them into human-type figures of superstition. We knew no better. The interest was there to describe the world, just not the knowledge. There was also the desire for certainty in an uncertain world. The myths that built up to describe the world go back to the beginnings of recorded time and probably beyond. What makes you think that Christianity isn't just a present incarnation of these age-old myths? The common threads of these myths moving through human societies, changing (not much) names and developing different doctrines in order to separate different cultures is manifestly obvious to me.

What I have difficulty with, is understanding why modern 21st century people hang on to such an obviously inadequate way of looking at our world. Humans have an in-eradicable interest in our surroundings. It consumes us. Science is an expression of that consuming interest and curiosity. It always will be, and it inevitably progresses by curiosity. It's the asking of 'how' and the pursuit of potential answers to that 'how'. It requires uncertainty to pursue science. It requires certainty to pursue the inadequacy of superstition. Thank you all again for enlightening me.

The God-done-it view of religious people seems to have eradicated that curiosity and I find that sad. It is just too easy to adhere to that god view and not question anything further. Religious people don't even seem able to question why there are so many religious sects/cults in the world. The devil-done-it seems to be the only answer. Mental laziness again. That's no answer. That's just in-group, out-group thinking that answers nothing of any value. It's the closed mind attitude of religious people whose fall-back position is to utterly un-evidenced, though historically reiterated, superstition.

If your search fails to supply you with satisfactory answers might I suggest a couple of authors who might help.

I am not searching. I am only trying to work out and understand why the religious meme has such a stranglehold on the modern mind. Thanks to Billy, Quetz, gr8, NB, Logicel and many others I have encountered here, that understanding is growing.

So, no, I won't be starting a forum regarding atheism and answers provided by atheism. It is a nonsense.

I love this website. I learn so much from it.

Cheers
V

530. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59659 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 4:11 am

219. Comment #59630 by Quetzalcoatl on July 30, 2007 at 2:15 am

PS- why is everything in italics?

Hehehe - I wasn't careful enough in my post. Sorry, I assume you got my dift anyway? I didn't check my HTML codes properly? (is that the right way to answer this arcane question?). Easy answer: I was slack, inattentive and two-finger typing at that!!.

Note to self: Keep trying harder....don't stop,


Cheers (I think)
V

531. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59629 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 1:56 am

Robert, I know that we are worth preserving. I just can't see how we can do this.

I have never thought of myself as self-effacing. I see myself as part of this species that appears hell-bent on destroying itself and my cats and fish:-)

In all our disparateness, how do you envisage our preservation? Maybe I am not a humanist - maybe I am just a speciesist (is that a word?) I hope you get my drift.

Robert, I try to hold onto hope that Homo sapiens won't destroy itself and every other species that evolved, painfully and slowly throughout our life, lifetime on this planet. I really, truly do try. But I seem to have little assurance that this will be so.

You have no idea how much I would like to believe that this planet is evolving its species in order to maintain its livelihood. It just won't happen. Our sun is going to annihilate itself about 4.6 Billion years from now. What species do you think will be inhabiting this planet at that time? I suspect it won't be us, science fiction writings not-withstanding.

Trust me, I am not, and never have been self-effacing. I am rebellious to the core and upset people all the time. It doesn't stop me from contemplating the future of our species and all others. It's very sobering and, at times, I am able to see our demise. I can try to be positive and life will go on forever. The other side of me tells me that we are an aberration and we will annihilate ourselves because we can't see all that far into the future. Mea culpa on all of us.

Cheers
V

532. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59627 by Veronique on July 30, 2007 at 1:30 am

Has fides walked? I suppose that such a barrage might have sent him flying. I can also assume that his compartmentalised brain couldn't cope with integration, which would be another reason why he may have walked.

Tell me, someone, why is it that people seem unable to distance themselves from inculcated belief systems in order to embrace reason (or another point of view)? Billy, can you answer this?

I contend that I am able to listen to and evaluate a point of view or a discussion without adopting its premise(s). Is this merely an intellectual trick that I have taught myself? smiles>/i>, I don't think so, but maybe I need to be corrected on my stance. Am I as 'fundamentally' opposed to superstitious belief structures as I am adamant that those structures are superstitious and have no place in a realistic world? Indeed, those superstitious structures have a very deleterious impact on our species' ability to maintain our habitat (for us and all other species, animal and vegetable:-)).

This is my view. Does anyone of you think that I am being unduly pessimistic about our ability to maintain this (moving) stasis within our planet's (admittedly finite) life? We seem to talk about various ways of looking at common issues; taking umbrage at those issues and putting forward our views on those issues. Do we ever start to look at the enormous problems we face as a species or a co-existent species on this planet? Should I be on another forum to discuss this?

I just think (and I am culpable as well), that we play games here. Not that we try to; it just becomes the only way to express our distress at what is actually happening to us (and over which we have little, if any, control).

I don't have a problem with viewing our species as a failed one, although I don't really believe (there's that word again!) that we will fail, just change to accommodate our changing environment. I'll be dead before those possible changes occur.

I don't want to appear as a dork (who does?), but would someone please engage me on this? These issues are the ones I want to talk about. I don't want to read what Bizarro says, or what Henri wants to say. I want to engage with people who can see an over-arching , enormously important, life threatening (to all species), road that Homo sapiens is travelling on with little or no regard to its consequences.

Cheers
V