551. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112860 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 7:38 am

Scooternyc: Do we all not understand that choice is a personal freedom each person owns?

And do you not understand that you're approaching the concept of choice incredibly simplistically?

Take a young child. Now starve him. Now beat him. Now thump him, kick him, attack him with whatever comes to hand - maybe a plugged-in iron or a white hot fire poker. Or - a favourite of the father of one of the guys I worked with - a fibreglass fishing rod. Mock him at every turn. Undermine him. Tell him he's stupid, he's worthless, that he'll never amount to anything. Don't let him go to school or, if you do, do everything you can to undermine what he learns there - especially if he comes home proud of some achievement. Oh, and there are plenty of worse stories too: lock him in a cupboard and make him eat his own excrement.

One man I worked with was so terrified of being at home as a boy that he CHOSE (note the word) to break the law so as to be sent to Borstal. And when he was let out, he did it again. And again. Why? Because he knew that his chances of physically surviving into adulthood would be greatly increased that way. Who are you to tell him he shouldn't have made that choice?

Most of us have been fortunate enough never to have experienced this kind of existence, or the degree of sheer misery and despair it leads to.

These people I'm talking about - and I've known people who've been through all the things I've listed above - had no choice in the family they were born into; no choice in their upbringing; no choice in the violence to which they were subjected; no choice about the education they didn't receive; no choice about the way that all spirit, all self-esteem, all confidence, all pride, all hope were systematically kicked out of them.

And yet you still want to maintain that they had a real choice when it came to deciding whether or not to seize on something that offered them some appearance of escape? Yes, they had a choice: take the escape or continue in their abject terror and misery. They're both thoroughly lousy options: continue as they are with no respite at all, or buy themselves some brief but blissful moment of respite at the risk of addiction. You and I may be able to identify other options - but that is because we have had the good fortune NOT to have been taught at the end of a chairleg that we've got no business believing we might be able to make something of ourselves.

A choice is not a choice if your whole experience of life puts one of the options out of your reach.

You condemn these people for taking drugs, when their whole lives have made taking drugs seem like the only option open to them - trust me, you wouldn't survive for half an hour in the environments in which they've spent their entire childhood.

Of course, if more people had shown some real empathy in the early stages of this spiral of deprivation and had intervened to help instead of taking the attitude that "it's all their own fault", then maybe the addicts would never have needed to reach the point where they had to add your scorn to the list of everything else they had to contend with.

552. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112841 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 7:06 am

al-rawandi: Are you a philologist by chance?

Not as such, but I am a linguist. And Greek was my subsidiary subject at university! :-)

553. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112830 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 6:42 am

Annabanana: Scooter, you've missed the point. Most addicts who successfully are able to quit have failed many many times before. The drugs become first priority in the hierarchy of needs.

That is exactly right, Anna. Nor does "quitting drugs" happen in isolation: it always entails huge support in a range of different ways - medical, psychological, emotional, structural(somewhere to live, for instance). None of which would be provided if we were all to take the view that the addict's situation is all his own fault so it's up to him to get himself out of it on his own.

I used to work with homeless people (many of whom were addicts) and I'm familiar with the argument that "they've only got themselves to blame". And, frankly, it's just plain wrong in most (admittedly not all) cases.

The circumstances that some people are born into and then grow up in just beggar belief - most of us, thank goodness, couldn't even begin to imagine the horrors that some of them had been through. Experience the same kind of grinding poverty, brutality and utter degradation yourself first - then condemn those who are broken by them.

554. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112819 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 6:22 am

Yours is just one of many definitions of said word.

I looked up 2 sources, one of them the OED, and both were consistent. Neither suggested for a moment an element of disease!

The original Greek "pathos" refers to feeling, suffering & emotion. Its appearance in the suffix "-path", which does denote disease, is of much more recent origin, and has nothing to do with "empathy" which is actually a hellenized translation of a German word, which itself literally means "in-feeling".

What is the source of your preferred etymology?

In any case, your argument here is circular: you prefer the etymology that you allege simply because it reflects your own view. It cannot therefore be used, as you have attempted to use it, to support your own view. To do so is every bit as circular as when a Christian defends her views on the basis of the bible.

555. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112779 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 4:33 am

Scooternyc: Accountability - taking ownership of one's reality by understanding the choices presented and making a choice at any given moment

Responsibility - being able to respond to the choices made

If you think that the drug addict either "understands" the choices presented in connection with his or her addiction, or "is able to respond" to the choices available, I'm afraid you're revealing a serious lack of understanding of what the hardest drugs do to an addict's brain; or of the circumstances that lead some people to become addicts in the first place.

I suspect such simplistic interpretations of other people's problems are necessary in order to be able to immure yourself to them as you seem to aspire to do.

I'm afraid your etymological knowledge is dodgy too:

empathy
1903, translation of Ger. Einfühlung (from ein "in" + Fühlung "feeling"), coined 1858 by Ger. philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-81) from Gk. empatheia "passion," from en- "in" + pathos "feeling" (see pathos). A term from a theory of art appreciation. Empathize (v.) was coined 1924; empathic (adj.) is from 1909.

556. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112717 by Paula Kirby on January 18, 2008 at 1:26 am

Steve Z: I just thought it would be interesting for some to point out that there are religious belief systems that are quite prepared to step aside as science makes progress, and don't share the "we know best" arrogance of, say, Christianity.

Well, you can see why theistic and non-theistic religions might differ in intransigence. Theistic religions have their information direct from God, after all, so who are mere scientists to argue?

557. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112592 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Steve: It does seem to be the Abrahamic religions that have a particular problem with the idea of scientific evidence, that require mental gymnastics.

Fair comment. I have a tendency to mean "Abrahamic religion" when I refer to "religion", since it's the only kind I'm really familiar with, and the only kind that exercises any real influence in Western society. Also, I find that this slightly lazy habit of mine irritates the pants off a pagan who posts on a different site that I frequent - which makes it all worthwhile ;-)))

558. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112587 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Does anyone know of a SINGLE serious scientist who believes in creationism without having had a prior religious commitment to the idea? In other words, who has arrived at their religion through their science, rather than the other way round?

It just strikes me as so entirely barking mad to believe that anyone could assess the evidence with an open mind and conclude on the basis of that evidence that everything was created by a super-intelligence in the space of 6 days.

There are those who argue that science and religion are not incompatible: but if religion makes you unable to assess the evidence for what it is, as opposed to what your beliefs require it to be, then the incompatibility is undeniable.

559. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #112579 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Epinephrine: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the thought of an MSc. in Creation Science...

Yes. If you'd never heard the term before, you'd assume it was the science of pottery, wouldn't you?

560. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112574 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Goldy: And God talks of himself in the plural....

Well, there are three of him!

561. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112572 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Goldy: Paula, having a quick gander over Genesis (http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/genesis_1.html) I see he made man and wman on the 6th day and told them to be fruitful etc

Yes, chapter 1 has it ok. But chapter 2 goes into the creation of man in more detail and from there it's clear that there must have been at least a few days' delay between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. And, given that Adam didn't arrive until day 6, that puts Eve outside the "creation timeframe".

Great, isn't it? 2 chapters in, and already the bible has contradicted itself! :-)

562. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112558 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 1:08 pm

and the Darwinists have no theory whatsoever about the origin of life, none whatsoever, except the most hazy, the kind of preposterous, New Age hypothesis

You know, he's got a point. Believing that God took a handful of dust and breathed life into it is WAY more reasonable than just saying "We don't know yet". Honestly - these scientists really should get their act together.

By the way, why don't we make more of the fact that God clearly wasn't thinking straight when he created humans? Chapter 1 of Genesis suggests he created male and female at the same time, but chapter 2 makes it clear that that the creation of Eve was an afterthought, only occurring to God AFTER Adam had learned all the names of the rivers and the plants, and had named the animals. This rather steep learning curve must have taken Adam some time to conquer, so it's very unlikely to have all happened on his very first day of existence. Adam was created on the 6th day, God rested on the 7th day - which can only mean that Eve wasn't created until AFTER the 6 days in which God allegedly created EVERYTHING.

Wasn't it a pretty fundamental oversight on God's part to forget to create female humans until all the rest of his design work was finished? Can it be that no one had told him the facts of life?

563. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112535 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

As an American I can only guess it is due to the habit of people copulating next to a running microwave.

I never cease to marvel at just how much I learn on this website ;-)

564. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #112529 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 12:32 pm

- Research. Paredes said that the institute "claims that their faculty do actual research," so he asked for "material that documented the research activities under way" and that show the research to be "based on solid scientific research."

Well, it's going to be VERY interesting to see what answers the Institute gives to this! How do you research creationism? And how they have the gall to equate hunting for ANYTHING, no matter how stupid, that might just possibly (when suitably twisted and regurgitated) reinforce the conclusion they've already arrived at, with proper scientific research is just beyond me. But then, so much about these so-called creation "scientists" (sic) is.

Still - a glimmer of hope here, maybe?

565. Queerer Than We Can Suppose: The Strangeness of Science

Comment #112518 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Thanks for bringing this one back from the dead - it's lovely.

I've always loved RD's suggestion that dogs might experience smells as harmonious chords: walking my dog has never been the same since I first read it. I watch her excitement when she's walking somewhere unfamiliar and sniffing everything with such evident joy - and I wonder what exactly she's experiencing. Wouldn't it be lovely to know for sure?

566. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #112499 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 10:48 am

Now that Christmas is over and done with for another year, I'd be really interested to know what effect the "Oh Come All Ye Faithless" tags had on sales.

Someone, somewhere, must have the numbers showing how sales of TGD through Borders compared with sales through other outlets that didn't have the tags.

If anyone at RD.net has this info, please share it with us! It would be fascinating.

567. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112485 by Paula Kirby on January 17, 2008 at 9:20 am

But within the species, there is competition amongst males, and an analysis of the strategies employed for being the lucky one who gets the lady is quite fascinating and far from being straightforward.

Interesting, isn't it, how in nature it always seems to be the males competing for the females, and hardly ever the other way round? I would argue that, in humans, females compete for males every bit as much as males compete for females. Are we alone in this, or are there other species where this also occurs? And why is the balance overwhelmingly this way round? Answers on a postcard please ...

568. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112175 by Paula Kirby on January 16, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Styrer: But if you have specific ideas as to how we could properly use Huckabee's concession, I would hastily join you, of course.

Nothing specific. Just that it's a point to keep up our sleeves for the next time someone tries to tell you that to be atheist is to be unAmerican, since America and Christianity go hand in hand and that was the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be.

569. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112113 by Paula Kirby on January 16, 2008 at 10:51 am

There's a link to the Tom Cruise video via this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7191355.stm

570. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112111 by Paula Kirby on January 16, 2008 at 10:45 am

Perhaps we can salvage one lone ray of hope from this otherwise dismal story: at least this is confirmation from a conservative Christian that the American Constitution, as it currently stands, is NOT, after all, based on Christian values! Isn't this what we have been saying all along?! Surely such a concession could prove useful to us, if we use it properly?

571. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #111630 by Paula Kirby on January 15, 2008 at 7:58 am

Goldy: Our own Wee Flea told to cheer up :-)

It's better than that, Goldy - he's telling others in his church to cheer up! Imagine - the man who wrote The Dawkins Letters, which is full of how the devil is at work in the Earth - this same man feels entitled to tell others to cheer up!

Either he's showing a really remarkable lack of self-awareness, or the rest of the Wee Frees are even gloomier than he is. What a thought.

572. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111349 by Paula Kirby on January 14, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Dear George

How lovely to read about you on RichardDawkins.net. It's great to know we have the support of someone like you. Like everyone else here, I wish you all the very, very best for your forthcoming surgery and a full and speedy recovery.

I shall look out for your future letters to The Times with great interest. The more of us there are sticking up for common sense and reason, the better!

Paula xxx

573. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111306 by Paula Kirby on January 14, 2008 at 9:16 am

Oh, no, wait - they get even better:

several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years.

Why didn't I think of that?

574. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111305 by Paula Kirby on January 14, 2008 at 9:14 am

A must read. The dumbest 100 things ever posted on Christian chate sites. I like the one saying Atheist are just another sect of Muslims

Thanks for the link, al-rawandi. Some of the quotes are hilarious; others are truly heart-breaking.

I've just skimmed the first few so far, but this one is just wonderful:

I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

Priceless :-)

575. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111269 by Paula Kirby on January 14, 2008 at 7:49 am

OK, I've looked at the links now. This is what Sam's Reason Project is for:

The Reason Project will soon be a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The Reason Project will draw on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines — science, law, literature, film, journalism, information technology, etc. — to encourage critical thinking and wise public policy. It will convene conferences, produce films, sponsor scientific research and opinion polls, award grants to other non-profit organizations, and offer material support to religious dissidents and public intellectuals — all with the purpose of eroding the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

... and this is the link to the RDFRS mission statement: http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/foundation,ourMission

Sam's seems to be broader in remit whilst narrower in geographical scope, so the two are clearly not doing exactly the same thing. Beautifully complementary to each other, though, so hopefully there'll be plenty of collaboration between them on specific projects. In fact, I feel sure there will be.

Back to the level of us individual atheists, I agree that trying to co-ordinate us IS rather like herding cats ... but I also think we need to challenge ourselves to grow out of that. People simply are more effective when they're pulling together. That doesn't mean we have to be homogenous or that differences in approach need to be suppressed - just that a little co-operative spirit can go a long way.

576. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111267 by Paula Kirby on January 14, 2008 at 7:38 am

Geoff: I think Tyler's right, Paula (and it's very rarely, if ever, that I disagree with any of your comments).

It's ok, Geoff - it is allowed. And, sadly, not unprecedented ;-)

You're right: the books are all very different in style, but when it comes to campaigns differences in style and approach can be a strength, not a weakness. You notice that the names on the advisory panels overlap anyway, so it's not that they can't or won't work together.

I should confess I haven't yet followed the link to find out more about Sam's "Reason Project", and it could be that it's incompatible with, say, RDFRS, in some way. Or maybe Sam's project covers areas that are not included in the RDFRS charitable objectives - charities law is very strict on what organisations can and cannot do with the money they raise.

I'm sure there will be a good reason why they're ploughing their own furrows - it just seems a little counter-intuitive to me.

577. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111253 by Paula Kirby on January 14, 2008 at 6:54 am

All books purchased through the above link will help support the work of Sam's new foundation, The Reason Project, whose advisory board now includes: Peter Atkins, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Rebecca Goldstein, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Harry Kroto, Steven Pinker, Lee Silver, Ibn Warraq, and Steven Weinberg.

I can't decide whether I think it's a good thing or not that so many leading atheists seem to be setting up their own charitable foundations for the promotion of reason/atheism. Anything that spreads the word is very welcome, of course, but I have to admit that I'm very unclear about the differences between them. Mightn't they be more effective if they all joined forces and really pulled together? Just a thought.

578. The Group Delusion

Comment #110898 by Paula Kirby on January 13, 2008 at 7:23 am

Wooter: To Dr Dawkins
We have got a very hot debate on another thread. But the guys on that thread failed to answer my questions by referring to my reason. Worse, being evasive through being funny did not work. So I assume that I will have my answers gradually from you.

Interesting to note that Wooter is now asking RD to explain the basics of evolution, when on 18 December he wrote this:

First you have to read all all holy books to judge whether religion adds something to be bad or not. I read all Dawkins' books already.

Hmmm. Anyone else share my scepticism about this claim?

579. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110389 by Paula Kirby on January 11, 2008 at 5:05 am

ADH,: The proplems arise when your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards your husband/wife.

What you have done here is the equivalent of starting off by saying that we shouldn't eat stewed fruit because it is bad for us, and then conceding that, in fact, it's only ACTUALLY bad for us if eaten with great big dollops of ice-cream.

580. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110357 by Paula Kirby on January 11, 2008 at 3:36 am

For any fellow Dilbert fans out there, today's cartoon (though set in an office, as usual) perfectly captures the interaction between creationists and scientists:

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/

(The cartoon changes daily, so if you're not accessing it on 11 January 2008, you'll have to track it down via "Comic Archive".)

Enjoy :-)

581. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110353 by Paula Kirby on January 11, 2008 at 3:09 am

ADH: Providence is the unseen activity of God

So if it's unseen, how do you know it's there?

And, given that there are so many explanations that we CAN see for the things that theists ascribe to Providence, what makes Providence the best explanation?

582. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109404 by Paula Kirby on January 9, 2008 at 2:28 am

Until people see their faiths as the extension of ideas and separate from who they are; until it becomes clear that there are only workable ideas and ideas that do not work, quite simply because they are not true, it is going to be difficult for honest men like RD to be appreciated for their work and not because they make us feel better by lying to us.

I think you're absolutely right here, Incredulous. RD's real crime is to have subjected the truth claims of religion to the same kind of scrutiny as we'd apply to anything else. This breaks all the rules. Interesting, isn't it, how the response to RD absolutely bears out everything written by Dan Dennett!

583. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109394 by Paula Kirby on January 9, 2008 at 1:46 am

Far from the vitriolic diatribe of a God-hating misanthrope like Richard Dawkins, Hitchens's work is both appropriately respectful and right.

Hmmm - I was thinking about this. It's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO far off beam that it would be really fascinating to know what led to it. Somehow I doubt that this woman has just got her comments from her pastor - I find it hard to imagine any pastor raving about Christopher Hitchens.

So how might it be possible to conclude that RD is a god-hating misanthrope and CH is respectful and right? I wonder whether it's because CH actually doesn't write much on the subject of God at all: his book, despite the first 4 words of its title, focuses on the harm that religion has done and doesn't really go into the question of God much. I've found that a lot of believers seem able to cope with this and will readily admit that the institutions of religion can be bad (whilst firmly denying that their own belief forms part of those institutions, of course.) How many believers have you heard say they don't love religion, they love God?

RD, whilst much more measured than CH, actually has the temerity to challenge the truth of God. For many believers this is much, much more offensive than highlighting the failings of religion, which, let's face it, they just put down to the sinfulness of humankind anyway.

Add to that the fact that they're all firmly convinced that RD wrote an earlier book declaring that humans have a genetic right to be selfish, and they're clearly in no mood to attempt an accurate assessment of anything he says now.

But if RD is upset at being called a god-hating misanthrope, can you imagine how Christopher Hitchens will be seething at having been described as "respectful" towards religion!!!

584. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109193 by Paula Kirby on January 8, 2008 at 2:51 pm

So you're saying that evolution idea Is evolved from random mutation into natural selection only. I did not know that. When did it happen? You better listen to Paula. She is right. You are losing it now.

Wooter, I have a feeling that this comment of yours sheds a great deal of light on the way you process information – i.e. with a determination to see only what you want to see. I most certainly did not write or even imply that Roger was mistaken in his understanding of evolution – I simply found his use of the word "spastic" offensive. Nor did I suggest that he was "losing it", as you put it. You undermine your own case when you so blatantly twist the meaning of what is written – if you are this dishonest in representing what I have written when it is so very simple to show that you've been dishonest, why should we believe you have represented other arguments honestly?

So, in this perfect world, everything is designed for human being and human being is the most valuable creature because HE HAS BEEN MIND AND LOGIC TO THINK. After the earth dies, god will create another world with different conditions. Animals will finish their duty in this world.

Wooter, really: "this perfect world"??? A world with earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, deadly viruses and other micro-organisms, ice-ages, infernos, deadly spiders, deadly snakes, deadly crocodiles; disease; infirmity; disability; pain. I could go on and on and on. This is far from being a perfect world. If it's God's creation, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

But it isn't. You are suggesting that the whole of the universe is as it is because it was designed that way with the purpose of making a "perfect" world for us – in other words, you are claiming that the universe is the way it is because humans are the way we are. In reality it is precisely the other way round: humans are the way we are because the universe is the way it is – because we have evolved to adapt to and survive in the conditions that existed. Had the conditions been different, we would have been different. Or we might not have existed at all. To suggest that the whole universe – or even just the Earth - is there with the objective of creating humans is so incredibly arrogant - and you accuse US of having egos that are getting in the way of reason!

As for your litany of all the circumstances that make life possible for us: the protection from radiation and meteors, the perfect distance of the sun, the availability of food to eat – don't you realize that the same can be said of every single organism on Earth? If amoebas could talk, they could be congratulating themselves right now on the fact that the Earth was created by the Great Amoeba God specifically with them in mind, because the conditions for their existence (including the presence of tasty humans for them to feast on) are so perfect.

And yet again, your insistence that it is only humans who have a mind and therefore the ability to think is entirely misplaced. It is becoming increasingly evident that a range of animals have reasoning abilities to a quite remarkable degree. We, of course, are one of them, and so far as we know at present, we have greater reasoning abilities than any other animal. But that does not for one moment "prove" that the world was made with us in mind!

I shared this department store analogy with my students. They really liked it. I told them as well the heater, sun (Sun never said , Hey earth, I am out of oil. Send some oil to me. And the earth is dancing around itself and around the sun to make days and nights and years for us.) They really love it. I said, of course, the earth is being spun by God and the same way, the earth is being rotated by God as well. I brought out a SPINNING TOP and I asked one of the students to spin it. And he did. Later I asked them how long did we have to wait for the spinning top to spin by itself without anybody's involvement? They told me "forever."

Like others here I am absolutely appalled that you should be imposing your beliefs on your primary school pupils in this way. It also gives the lie to the claim you made a few weeks ago when you claimed not to influence your children but simply to let them make their own minds up:

Okay today in my class I mentioned evolution theory and asked the kids whether you believe it or not. Nobody bought the story that life came from a pond, amino acids-proteins, Cell, worm, fish, reptiles, dinosaurs – that became birds while trying to catch bugs on the tree so suddenly they got the wings) etc. I swear I did not have any influence on them. They just thought of it by all themselves.

585. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108772 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Flying Goose: I think I am in th process of losing my religion. Which doesn't mean I am becoming an atheist but reading TGD has been a loss, as has visiting this web site.

It has also been a real stimulation and a 'God'send one of the things that has helped me through my slough of despond.

Nice to see you back, Flying Goose - hadn't seen you around for a while. I well remember the feeling you describe: losing your faith does feel like a real loss to begin with; and it feels very strange at first. But there's also that sense of exhilaration because you're conscious that you're embarking on a new kind of life, yet you don't yet know what it will be like. Exciting, stimulating - but yes, a bit scary too.

One things religion can do very well is give you a way of life and group of people with whom one can live it, belief is only one part of it.

Yes, religion is very good at this. As someone else has pointed out, there are other ways of getting this, but nevertheless, this is something very positive that religion has to offer (even if not exclusively). I think it's probably very difficult to fully appreciate just what a big step losing your faith is, unless we also appreciate that religion isn't just about belief: the community aspect of it is very strong too.

I wonder sometimes whether websites like this one aren't some kind of equivalent for atheists... If so, I think that would be a very good thing, by the way.

You say you think you're in the process of losing your religion. I don't want to say anything to push you - just to reassure you that, if you do complete the process, there is an exciting, happy, fulfilled, stimulating life to lead at the end of it! Despite the emotional attachment I had to my faith, I can honestly say that discarding it felt like a breath of fresh air, as if an incredible weight had been lifted from me. I would never have thought it would be like that - but it was, and I couldn't ever imagine choosing to go back to it now.

Good luck, whichever way you go, anyway.

586. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108766 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Galactor: The debate about the approach to take with theists is of course one that Dan Dennett (softly softly) and Richard Dawkins (nuke 'em) have had.

But I don't think "nuke 'em" describes RD's approach at all. RD is just forthright and direct, never personally abusive.

I'm not for one moment suggesting we shouldn't challenge believers, and challenge them vigorously; nor am I suggesting that we should not broach certain issues for fear of offending them. Not at all.

It's just that it's possible to be very challenging, and very insistent on the need for evidence and on the inadequacy of "faith" as proof of anything, and very clear in pointing out where someone's argument is all to pot - without resorting to verbal abuse. RD is an excellent example of this; Sam Harris is another.

Carl Sagan was supremely good at this too - as anyone who's read the transcripts of the Q&A in The Varieties of Scientific Experience will know. He was unfailingly courteous, unfailingly gentle, unfailingly willing to listen to what the other person was saying - but unfailingly insistent that it was not reasonable to believe anything without tangible evidence. It's just that there was nothing in his manner which might make it difficult for the listener to take on board what he was saying.

587. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108527 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 6:10 am

Your maths are spastic btw

Roger, I have great admiration for your scientific knowledge and your relentless challenging of creationism, and I am extremely glad you're around on this website - but I have to say that this was not your finest moment.

588. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108502 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 4:59 am

But I am just warning you to be ready for some harsh criticism.

I'm sure you're right, Steve - that's why I made sure I put my flak jacket on securely before I hit "Submit"! :-)

589. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108495 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 4:30 am

Richard Morgan: EDIT : Paula - I've just finished a plateful of perfectly designed prawns. Yummy

Ah well. At least they're now speeding on their way to getting a new dress. ;-)

590. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108489 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 4:05 am

Wooter: Our body is the dress of our soul. When the dress is worn out we leave this dress on the earth and God will give us a new dress, a much better one.
Paula: How do you know?
Wooter: If you make a beautiful painting, would you throw it away? Human being is the most artistic creation among other creations. When I look at my well-portioned face, I admire myself and Thank God my ears are [not] located at the back of head but in the best place protected by my eyebrows who changes the direction of sweat, or eyelashes, the curtains of eyes. Everything is so nice. If one my best friend calls me and says, "can you sell me one of your eyes, because I lost one and would give us lot of money, I would say "No". We are so expensive and valuable. How come such a beautiful and perfect being will disappear after she dies. This is how I know.

So what you're saying is that you don't really know, you're just assuming. You're assuming that humans have been created in the same way that a painting is created; and you're assuming that it's your god (as opposed to the many 1000s of gods available to believe in) who created us; and you're assuming that your god has thought processes that mirror ours exactly.

OK, let's assume for a moment that you're right. (I don't think you are for one moment, but just for the sake of argument.) What you're saying is that our bodies are so perfectly designed for the way we live that no designer is going to choose to throw them away.

In what way is a human body more perfectly designed for the way humans live than, say, a whale's body is for the way whales live? Or a prawn for the way prawns live? If a prawn could talk in a way that we could understand, it would doubtless refuse to sell you its shell, on the basis that it's so "expensive and valuable", to use your phrase. And quite right too, for it could not survive without it.

So presumably you must believe that God is going to give whales and prawns - and wasps, and scorpions and all creatures, in fact, since they've all been perfectly "designed" for their respective environments - "a new dress" after they die too? After all, why should he throw them away either, when he's made them perfectly too?

Or is it just humans? And if so, why?

591. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108482 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 3:37 am

Robotaholic: Thanks for posting that. Again and again I am struck by how difficult it is for some people to be(come) atheists - especially if they're open about it. We've seen posts on here recently about the fear of persecution at work and now your account of a breakdown in family relationships. It's sad. I hope it was just a temporary loss of temper on your dad's part, and that things will settle down soon.

Might I just make a plea to us all though please? And I include myself in the plea, since I know I'm as capable of getting impatient with theists as anyone else.

It is clear from some of the stories posted here that relinquishing belief can be a pretty daunting thing to do. Not only might you have the nagging fear to begin with that perhaps you're making a mistake and (if you're from a fundamentalist background) that you might be condemning yourself to hell as a result; but you have to face life without the comforting thought of a benevolent superpower watching over you; without the (to some) comforting thought that you'll never truly die; and without the sense of community that being part of a church congregation undoubtedly provides.

Add to that the fact that, for some (as we have seen), becoming an atheist may expose them to the real disapproval of - or even rejection by - friends, family, employers. That's not an easy choice to make.

So when we're engaging with theists and challenging their beliefs, we're actually asking them to consider embarking on a course of action that could prove to be incredibly painful and difficult for them. Or, at the very least, that they FEAR could prove to be incredibly painful and difficult for them. And they may well be right.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that we shouldn't challenge their beliefs, but I do think we should try to do it as kindly as we can, remembering that the rejection of theism isn't JUST a rational process, but an emotional one too, and one that can have very emotional consequences.

Resorting to abuse and name-calling, and accusing them of being "moronic" and "fucktards" and all the other terms of abuse that get hurled around from time to time, is almost certainly going to prove counter-productive in that it's just going to reinforce their sense of needing the comfort that their religion (and their religious community) provides. It's also going to reinforce their fears about atheism and what it does to people.

I do understand the impulse to shout and scream, but ultimately I think we're going to be more effective if we can gently encourage people to question their beliefs rather than think we can abuse them into doing so.

This is a preachy post, and I'm sorry about that, but reading Robotaholic's post brought it home to me so vividly just what we're asking of people. If Robotaholic didn't feel his atheist friends were supportive, it would be even harder for him to deal with this family crisis just now. Well, he's an atheist, so he's in "our club" and knows he'll get our support; but imagine a theist who's posting on this site and being abused for doing so: why should they want to even consider potentially isolating themselves from all sources of support but us? In a way it comes back to what I wrote in my last post (above): maybe in many cases the most effective thing we can strive to do is just not to put people off.

592. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108467 by Paula Kirby on January 7, 2008 at 3:01 am

ClunkClick: For me, it has to start in the schools with accurate and honest science education.
My timescale is definitely unatainable, sad to say. However, considering TGD was first published in 2006, the stimulation of activity among previously silent atheists has been excellent but there is a long (several generations at least) struggle to enlightenment for humanity as a whole.

ClunkClick, I agree with you on both counts. Accurate and honest science education is crucial and, yes, the debate between theists and atheists is going to last for generations.

All I'd say is that every mass of people is composed of n number of individuals. So, although it may feel slow, it's worth debating with individuals. You just never know where conversations will lead. I don't flatter myself, by the way, that even one individual is going to abandon religion as a direct result of a conversation with me; but if they even go away and think about some of the issues we've talked about, and maybe talk about them with other believers, who then in their turn ALSO go away and think about them ... you just don't know where these things might lead.

Incidentally, when I was a Christian I was always rather bemused at the lamentations of one of my friends, who was concerned she wasn't converting enough people to Christianity. Personally I was just pleased if I hadn't actively put anyone off! And I'm not sure I view things much differently now ...

593. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108371 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Paula: I don't know if it is a better idea. But I find it intriguing that Brian Coughlin often drops in on Christian blogs and does his thing there.

Yes, that's great too. But isn't there room for both? Wouldn't it be odd if there weren't people actively defending atheism on the Richard Dawkins website of all places?! :-)

594. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108360 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Atheists - it's all very well having these great discussions with ADH, but methinks he's be given, or has volunarily taken on, the assignment of tying up the time of great atheist thinkers on this site.
Please everyone, don't waste so much time with ADH or any other Christian trolls. This "one-at-a-time approach" is spoiling my chances of seeing an atheist planet Earth in my lifetime, and this is very disappointing.

Lots of reasons for doing it, ClunkClick - not the least important of which being that I enjoy it :-) It's very flattering to think we might otherwise be converting the masses to atheism, but I doubt it somehow! And for those individual theists (many of whom will just be lurkers, so we'll never know about them) who ARE willing to question their beliefs, will it not be more effective to be able to see a reasoned debate going on than just a stream of abusive comments about how stupid people are for believing? There are good, strong, rational reasons for preferring atheism over theism - why shouldn't they be set out loud and clear for all to see?

And never mind the theists. Speaking personally I learn a huge amount from reading the posts in this kind of interaction, and wouldn't miss it for the world; and being challenged to explain my own views to someone who doesn't share them is a learning experience that helps me to clarify my thoughts too.

But if you've got a better plan for bringing about an atheist planet in your lifetime, do share it with us - I'm curious! :-)

595. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108331 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I have to think about persuading groups of english-speaking, anglocentric young people that it may be worthwhile learning a foreign language in a world where english is the vehicle language! Perhaps Paula can help with that one!

Help? No! Sympathise? Yes - languages were my first love, academically speaking. What language(s) do you teach?

596. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108306 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Krisking: it may also be because I have met some Christians who are the most amazing individuals.

Ah, ok, crossed posts again! So one of the consequences of relinquishing the idea of God's existence would be that you'd have to find a different explanation for the amazingness of some of the Christians you have met.

Can you think of any possible alternative explanations there might be?

597. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108304 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Kris, thanks for your reply, but I don't think that's quite what I was getting at, though perhaps the way I phrased my question was misleading. I was interested in your comment that you are "at present unwilling to relinquish the idea of God's existence".

That seems to suggest that the idea of God's existence is important to you in some way, and I'm trying to find out what way that might be. What would change if you did relinquish the idea of his existence?

598. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108298 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Paula Kirby - I think you should debate Denesh D'souza - you'd have him begging you to stop! lol-

Now, now, robotaholic, that's just mean. I wouldn't wish Dinesh D'Souza on my worst enemy. What have I ever done to offend you? ;-))

599. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108296 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Thanks for that, Krisking.

If you asked my wife, she would tell you that I don't believe anything, and she is amazed that I am having any kind of dialogue in this forum.

Why is she amazed? This forum is full of dialogue between people who don't believe in God. Or is it the fact that you're sticking up for God that she finds amazing?

I am at present unwilling to relinquish the idea of the existence of God.

Can you expand on this a little? What makes you unwilling? What question does the existence of God answer that non-theistic answers don't?

At the same time I am horrified at the way various christian denominations and some of the members of those denominations have behaved and some of the views that they preach.

I'm sure nearly all of us would agree with you there.

I think that if God is real, then his reality would not necessarily need to be felt in the kind of way physical beings demand.

Can you tell us why not? I mean, I can quite see why this should be the case if the god in question wasn't believed to involve himself in the affairs of the cosmos at all, but since the Christian god IS believed to do so, why are you wlling to let him off the hook of needing to be SHOWN to do so before we can believe in him?

I also think that if God is real, then I find him very frustrating.

In what ways, Kris? I'm genuinely interested.

600. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108291 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 12:01 pm

You only have to watch the beginning.

Ah well, I'm glad I asked. I'd never have spotted what it was you wanted to me to see - as Diacanu says, it's just a figure of speech - and I'd have ended up spending an hour and a half watching it and still been none the wiser. In which case I'd no doubt have come out with a different figure of speech myself. Which wouldn't have meant I worshipped that either ;-)

Now then, about your own beliefs, Kris...?
EDIT: Just seen that our posts have crossed on this.