601. 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!!!

602. 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.

603. 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.

604. 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.

605. 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.

606. 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"! :-)

607. 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. ;-)

608. 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?

609. 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.

610. 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 ...

611. 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?! :-)

612. 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! :-)

613. 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?

614. 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?

615. 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?

616. 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? ;-))

617. 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.

618. 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.

619. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108280 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 11:36 am

Krisking: Have a look at what Julia Sweeney says about buying the book.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-808547712754338659

I'm sure it's fascinating, but it's an hour and a quarter long. Perhaps you could summarise the relevant bit for me?

And by the way, you haven't answered my question about what you believe. Come on, Kris, we answer endless questions from you about what we believe and why - it's time to tell us something about yourself and your beliefs now.

620. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108278 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 11:30 am

ADH: the presence of a moral conscience in everyone is a manifestation of the overarching moral order of which they are a part. The detail will vary from individual to individual. But these constitute the common core.
You will point out no doubt that different cultures have different codes. But the degree of consensus is actually much more astonishing than the degree of difference. And in every culture (including our own supposedly Christian culture) blatant violations of the moral order (Aquinas' Natural Law) can become encrusted into custom and can end up being accepted due to consensus, with hardly a murmer from our conscience.

You know, ADH, you're so nearly right with this. There is indeed a moral conscience inside everyone, and there is a remarkable degree of agreement in societies around the world as to what constitutes immoral behaviour, along with certain cultural differences that tend also to become enshrined as "morality" along the way.

The only place you're wrong is in assuming that this must be the result of a morality imposed by God. Since I have already posted on this topic on another thread today, I'll just copy what I wrote earlier:

Morality arises from the evolutionary need for humans to co-operate with one another for their survival. Across the world, in nearly all societies, whether based on Abrahamic religions or not, we find that the same basic "moral rules" apply. They don't need to be imposed, whether by Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Shintoists, Taoists, Confucianists, Zoroastrans or atheists. They emerge naturally from what makes human societies work.

Human societies cannot work where murder, rape, theft, lies and fraud are not discouraged - and therefore every human society discourages them. We don't need a god to tell us these things - plain old human experience will suffice. As Christopher Hitchens so rightly points out, the idea that murder, theft and the like were deemed ok before the Ten Commandments were handed down is just silly - the Israelites wandering through the desert would have exterminated one another long before they'd ever reached Mount Sinai to receive the commandments in the first place.

And it's not just human societies either – it is becoming increasingly apparent that a number of other animal species have a sense of "morality" too, and behaviours that have a harmful effect on the group as a whole are "punished" by the other members of the group.

This can be explained in its entirety by reference to evolution. As ever, no gods required.

621. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108272 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 11:17 am

Richard Morgan - you sent me a PM the other day, but I can't reply since it seems you have disabled the facility to receive PMs yourself. If you disable the disabling, I'll have another go!

622. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108263 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 11:05 am

Krisking: Well, perhaps he should be more careful in his choice of titles! As you know, language is important and a random use of words can communicate the wrong idea.

I think he has come to the same conclusion himself, Krisking. There's little doubt that he'd choose a different title if he could re-name it now. At the time he was no doubt assuming that people would actually read it before assuming they knew what it said, but we're all older and wiser now.

623. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108262 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 11:01 am

Krisking: Invented by whom?

OK. Let me refer you back to what you wrote:

I think that is precisely what the first of the ten commandments was warning against.

"I am the LORD your God,"
"You shall have no other gods before me"
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.

This is the problem religions have run into. They have invented their own gods, and as you say, some people have set themselves up as gods.

You suggest that religions themselves run into a problem because they break the first commandment by inventing their own gods. But the first commandment is itself part of a religion, and so, by your own argument, may well be the product of an invented god. So it seems strange to use it as the basis of your argument.

But I'm really interested in the answer to the question I put to you in response to your comment about religions inventing their own gods: what do you believe?

624. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108225 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 9:20 am

... and, by the way, what if the First Commandment was invented too?!

625. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108222 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 9:19 am

This is the problem religions have run into. They have invented their own gods, and as you say, some people have set themselves up as gods.

So what do you believe, Krisking?

626. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108203 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 8:46 am

SO much I could respond to in ADH's post, but I'll just summarise most of it by saying that it comes under the category of "We don't know why there's suffering in the world, we just have faith that it's for our own good in the end." Not ever so convincing, I'm afraid.

So I'll move on to his final points:

Another thing that needs saying is that assuming the absence of God, there is not only a PERCEPTION of meaninglessness, but the unmitigated reality of ultimate meaninglessness.

Yes, absolute meaninglessness. Why should you have a problem with that? Are you so important? Do you have even the remotest idea of how infinitessimally small the Earth is on the scale of the universe, let alone you personally?
EDIT: This does not mean that we can't create meaning in our lives - of course we can and do. Just that the meaning is OUR meaning, not someone else's meaning.

Suffering leads to despair, in the long term. There is no one there who is allowing contingency to prevail temporarily, but whose ultimate purpose is benevolent.

Well, that's your perspective. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I simply don't feel as despairing as you'd like me to. In fact, I find a deep comfort in the knowledge that the terrible things that have happened in my life (and there have been some) are not part of anyone's grand purpose, but are simply the accidents of chance in a world of which there was never any reason to expect perfection.

In other words, there's nothing remotely personal about them so there's no reason to feel resentful; and in the absence of a supposedly benevolent god, and in the presence of evidence of a universe that has formed through purely natural processes, there is no reason to expect perfection or an existence without suffering - and so no reason to feel angry or let down when such suffering occurs. Give me my understanding of suffering over yours any day.

And I'm actually sure that it would [resonate] with many of you if you allowed the odd chink to open up in your armour of fidephobic prejudice.

No fidephobic prejudice on my part, I can assure you. Is it even POSSIBLE to be pre-judiced about something you have first hand experience of, I wonder? Has it occurred to you that you may be a-fidephobic?

If the resurrection of Christ happened...

Well, yes. But that's a pretty big IF, isn't it. So, since the rest of your statement absolutely depends on that IF, perhaps you should set about finding evidence that it really did happen. Here's a clue: nothing but nothing but nothing that any Christian so far has suggested as "evidence" of the truth of the resurrection stands scrutiny for a moment, so please don't waste your time or ours resorting to the well-worn ones (you know: 'how do you account for the disciples' remarkable eagerness to spread the word when they were previously so down-hearted and when spreading the word was so dangerous' - that sort of thing. They've all been answered many times before.)

But if you have genuinely new evidence that the resurrection really did happen, then please do share it with us. You know how fond we are of evidence!

Something tells me that haven't though.

627. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #108187 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 7:57 am

Look - you are here to be the Christian gadfly. This doesn't mean to say you are allowed to do humour as well

... let alone when you post the same joke on two different threads!

628. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108184 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 7:50 am

Yep, God so loved the world that he drowned just about everything on it and sent them all to hell with out hope of forgivness

And when you come to think about it, Jesus was there with God (and indeed was God, apparently) right from the very beginning, so why didn't God do that trick with the crucifixion and resurrection 1000s of years earlier? Just think how much suffering and mass slaughter might have been spared. Why wait so long? Or didn't this omniscient, omnipotent God think of it in time?

629. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108167 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 6:49 am

And some Christians would counter THAT by saying that God in fact doesn't have the ability to remove evil - but that takes us back to the Fall again, and how that irrevocably introduced evil into the world, so that just lands us back at the problems I raised in post 56.

630. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108165 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 6:43 am

Oh, and then there's the answer that we don't know why there's natural evil in the world, but that we should take comfort in the fact (sic) that God (in Jesus) suffered too, so he knows what it's like.

Now, forgive my obtuseness, but I just don't see what's meant to be so comforting about that. An omnipotent god presumably could remove my suffering if he chose to, but instead I'm meant to be comforted by the idea that he knows what it's like? Of course he knows what it's like - he's omniscient too, isn't he?

It's as if you were in agony with a dental abscess and I had some strong pain relief I could give you, but instead I chose to tell you that I had a dental abscess once too, so I know what you're going through. Very helpful.

631. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108160 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 6:24 am

Oh yes, and then there's the claim that a bit of suffering helps to strengthen us.

Though in that case, why wasn't it designed into the Garden of Eden in the first place? And if it was, what's the big deal about the Fall?

Questions, questions...

632. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108158 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 6:20 am

Epeeist: One thing I haven't heard raised though - why did god inflict such evil on us?

Good question! The answer depends - as ever - on who you ask. There's one that goes "It's God's punishment because of the Fall." Which is just monstrous. One woman eats an apple, and we're all condemned to cancer and other evils for millennia to come? Some justice!

Besides, this argument isn't compatible with the story about the death and resurrection of Jesus: because we're meant to believe that he took all the sins of mankind upon himself there, and took the punishment for them so that we wouldn't have to provided we believe in him. So if the existence of evil was God's punishment for the Fall, why didn't it vanish once Jesus had done his stuff? And why do Christians - even very genuine, sincere Christians - continue to die from cancer at exactly the same rate as we heathens?

The second answer is that God doesn't inflict such evil on us; he just allows it to happen. Somehow this, too, is linked with the Fall, but in too nebulous a way for me to be able to reproduce here. Again, there's no logic to it, is there? This is supposedly an omnipotent (not to mention omnibenevolent) god of whom we are meant to believe that "allowing something to happen" isn't the same as "causing it to happen". Since an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god could of course NOT allow it to happen, we have no choice but to deduce that his decision to ALLOW it to happen actually CAUSES it to happen.

Besides, if not of God's own creation, where did this evil come from in the first place? No good blaming that on the Fall: evil had to be in existence for Eve to eat that damn apple at all. So either God made it ... or it is possible for things to exist without God creating them.

633. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108141 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 5:23 am

Krisking: Yes, of course it is. Atheists have no idea what a world would look like if we all became atheists.

That's true. But nor do the religious, of course.

One of the big differences between religions and atheism is that the first expect some standard of behaviour while atheism expects nothing.

Indeed. Atheism of itself has nothing to say about how people should behave. This is one of the central reasons why those theists who claim that atheism is just another religion are quite wrong. Religions invariably (I think I'm right in saying this - someone will correct me if not!) impose a system of morality. Atheism doesn't. Atheism simply says there's no reason to believe in the existence of a god or gods.

This doesn't mean that humans don't need to find ways of living in harmony with one another, or that atheists are not interested in doing so; it just means that atheism makes no claims to be in possession of The Right Way To Do It. To denounce atheism because it makes no moral pronouncements is the equivalent of kicking your fridge because it doesn't make toast.

Given that there's no reason to believe in the existence of a god or gods, it is down to humans to work out the best "morality" we can. Some do so by reference to their religion, but again, given that there's no evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, there's no reason to believe the religious version of morality is going to be any better than anyone else's.

Morality arises from the evolutionary need for humans to co-operate with one another for their survival. Across the world, in nearly all societies, whether based on Abrahamic religions or not, we find that the same basic "moral rules" apply. They don't need to be imposed, whether by Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Shintoists, Taoists, Confucianists, Zoroastrans or atheists. They emerge naturally from what makes human societies work.

Human societies cannot work where murder, rape, theft, lies and fraud are not discouraged - and therefore every human society discourages them. We don't need a god to tell us these things - plain old human experience will suffice. As Christopher Hitchens so rightly points out, the idea that murder, theft and the like were deemed ok before the Ten Commandments were handed down is just silly - the Israelites wandering through the desert would have exterminated one another long before they'd ever reached Mount Sinai to receive the commandments in the first place.

The scientists say God does not exist (or is extremely improbable) and were are made up of selfish genes.

The way you write this makes me wonder whether you've understood what the term "selfish gene" really means. It is very commonly misunderstood to mean that humans are programmed by our genes to be selfish. This is absolutely NOT what Richard Dawkins meant when he coined the term. What he meant was that the ONLY force that drives our genes is the compulsion to replicate, replicate, replicate, as much as possible. The gene is unconscious and is utterly unaware of its place in the make-up of the organism as a whole, and doesn't replicate "for the purpose of" anything other than simply reproducing itself as often as it possibly can, and in whatever way it possibly can. In other words, each gene is only looking out for itself. It is selfish in that sense. Though of course, to speak of a gene possessing a quality such as selfishness is itself a nonsense if taken literally - it is an image, that's all.

To link "the selfish gene" with any aspect of human morality is therefore to attempt to connect two things that are utterly, irredeemably unconnected.

I am sure that for the dictators who instigated the destruction of large numbers of people, their actions were completely rational.

Well, individuals rarely do things in the full realisation that they're being irrational - we are very good at rationalising even the most bizarre beliefs. So you're probably right that tyrannical dictators have found ways to convince themselves that their actions were rational. Not that this makes them so, of course.

Given that the "tyrannical dictator" argument when used by theists is almost always an attempt to suggest that this is where society must end up in the absence of religion, I feel compelled to counter that one even though you haven't spelled it out.

Since morality is a human construct, which adapts to changing societies across time, there is no reason why not believing in a god should make any difference to the moral well-being of a society. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that the ONLY reason people don't murder other people is that one of the gods said they shouldn't and that they'd burn in hell for all eternity if they did. But you're clearly not saying that, since you have acknowledged elsewhere that the most moral, kind etc etc people you know include atheists as well as Christians.

So simply not believing in any of the gods isn't enough of itself to trigger carnage and mayhem and oppression. Yet that is what atheism is: simply not believing in any of the gods.

For those horrendous things to happen, you have to ADD something: a charismatic, power-crazed, despotic, tyrannical lunatic, for instance. Have you noticed that all the worst tyrants of the last 100 years have created cults around themselves: Stalin, Hitler, General Franco, Pol Pot, Saparmurat Niyazov, Kim Jong-Il? In other words, they have seen themselves as a kind of god and turned adoration of themselves into a form of religion.

The moment you create a religion around yourself - even a pseudo one - it's rather hard to see how you can be properly described as an atheist any more.

I'm not trying to diminish the problem here. You may well argue that people can't set themselves up as virtual gods in their own right if they believe in Christianity, for instance. (Though how General Franco or Antonio Salazar fit into that view of things is harder for you to argue.)

Clearly, we need to do our utmost to ensure that people like this never get their hands on power again. But to suggest that theism is the only answer is seriously inadequate. Are we seriously to believe that the ONLY way to prevent this happening in future is to keep people believing in gods for which there is no evidence?

Does atheism of itself have the answer? No, of course not. Atheism simply defines the problem: that there is no god and therefore we have to find our own answers. Those answers will have to come from the very best rational enquiry in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, history, philosophy, neuro-science, economics, criminology, genetics, chemistry - just about everything. You'll notice that I don't include religion in my list though. I don't claim that religions don't have anything worthwhile to say about human nature. But I would say that those bits of religions that are valid in this respect can be arrived at more reliably through sociology, psychology, criminology etc. The essence of theistic religion - the belief in a god for which there is no evidence - means that of itself it cannot be deemed to constitute "rational enquiry".

Don't kid yourself for one moment that none of this would be necessary if only everyone believed in your version of god. Franco and Salazar were both devout Christians, and Robert Mugabe is still a practising Catholic.

By the way, on re-reading this post (and sorry that it's so long) I am struck by my inappropriate emphasis on morality being a natural feature of human society. Scientific studies are increasingly showing that it is a natural feature of many animal societies too.

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

Comment #108103 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 3:16 am

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.

How do you know?

635. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108098 by Paula Kirby on January 6, 2008 at 3:12 am

SnowyDoc: As commented on by most, Sam Harris was as eloquent and incisive as ever with his usual habit of finding just the right argument or analogy to refute or expose even the most well-wrapped fuzzy thinking.

I agree. I think this is because he's really listening to his opponent and thinking on his feet in response to the specific issue raised. With Christopher Hitchens, much as I enjoy listening to him, I always have the sense that he's simply listening in order to identify which pre-defined answer to pull from his memory.

In many ways Sam Harris reminds me of Carl Sagan: the gentle style, the considerateness towards his questioner/opponent, the sense that he really wants the other person to understand rather than just concede defeat, all balanced with the the unequivocal insistence that there has to be evidence for something before it is reasonable to believe it.

636. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107952 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm

You presumably know people that you believe in and trust. That will be more that mere emotion.

Indeed. It will be based on relationship with a real person, and the ability to see how they act and respond in a wide range of situations. However, since that person is actually real - in a very physical, non-metaphorical, non-supernatural sense - and it doesn't require any prior faith on my part for me to be certain of their existence or to be able to experience their behaviour - I don't see how that helps us forward on the question of God.

And, by the way, even with a real, physical human being, it is possible to be disastrously wrong in placing trust and belief in someone - take it from someone who's got the scars to prove it. It is all-too possible to see in someone that which we want to see (and which sometimes isn't there at all), and to refuse to acknowledge those traits that don't match the image we have created of them in our minds.

So trust and belief in a deity in no way prove that it is reasonable to trust and believe in that deity, any more than trusting and believing in your partner proves that they'll be faithful to you.

So again we come back to the fact that subjective assessments are not and cannot ever be evidence of objective fact.

637. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107947 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Krisking: Do you know any society that you'd like to be part of whose morality doesn't have an objective source such as the Bible?

What's objective about the morality of the Bible?

638. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107946 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Paula: so what DO you base your beliefs on exactly? And why?

Krisking: Well, I am still working this one out....

That's very interesting and a perfect illustration of the difference between the scientific and the religious approaches. The religious approach is to believe first and work out the reasons for it afterwards. The scientific approach is precisely the opposite.

But if you are still working out what the basis of your beliefs is, how can you be confident of the truth of your beliefs? - especially as you've told us you distrust emotions in all this? And, even more, how can you possibly expect anyone else to be persuaded by your beliefs when you not only don't have any external evidence to support them but are still working out the reasons why you believe them yourself? I'm not being unkind - I'm just hoping you see that there's a real problem here when it comes to attempting to convince us that there's more to your religion than we think there is.

639. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107928 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

The flood happened in response to man's response to God

Whose response to God? All mankind's? Or just the people where Noah lived?

640. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107926 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Are you vegetarian?

I don't know whether Radesq is veggie or not, but it's not a reasonable comparison: even if he isn't, he doesn't kill animals (or permit them to be killed on his behalf) in order to inflict punishment on anyone or to undo any wrongs, so whether they're blameless or not doesn't come into it.

God, on the other hand, wipes out everything because he is sickened by man's wickedness. In other words, animals - which God does NOT accuse of wickedness - die because God was angry with man: "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of his thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air - for I am grieved that I made them.'" (Genesis 6: 5-7)

Not the same thing at all.

641. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107921 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Krisking> but it's not all physical, is it?

What isn't? Evidence for God? No - that was the point of my comment: that most believers ultimately have emotional reasons for believing, but that emotions aren't evidence. You came back and said you don't trust emotions either, so I'm interested to know just what you do base your belief on.

Or aren't you just talking about evidence for God? Are you talking about life in general? If so, I would have to disagree with you. Everything is indeed ultimately physical - the product of physical processes in our brains if nothing else. And that can be demonstrated with the use of brain scans. How would you demonstrate the opposite?

642. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107917 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 3:06 pm

The flood may be such a case. If the writer says that the whole earth was flooded and everyone on it destroyed....that may well have been his understanding from his limited point of view.

Absolutely. The bible as a series of books reflecting the understanding of an ancient society from its limited point of view. That's exactly how I see it too.

I don't think so. I am very suspicious of emotion. What I am exploring is the idea that the God of the Bible is not how we imagine he is nor how we imagine he should be.

OK, so you don't have physical evidence and you're quite rightly suspicious of emotions as pointers to the truth, and you're comfortable with the idea that the bible isn't infallible - so what DO you base your beliefs on exactly? And why?

643. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107908 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 2:58 pm

You are talking about a total 100% flood of the earths surface

Krisking: .....am I?

Genesis 6: 7
So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air - for I am grieved that I made them.

Genesis 6: 17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Genesis 7: 4
... and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

Genesis 7: 19
[The flood waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

Genesis 7: 23
Every living thng on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.

It's hard to see how EVERY living thing on the fact of the Earth could have been wiped out unless the flood covered everywhere, isn't it? Or how water could possibly rise to cover all the high mountains under the heavens, let alone to a depth of 20 feet, without covering the whole Earth. And it's God himself who says this is what he's going to do, and he should know, shouldn't he?

So yes, on the basis of the bible story you must be talking about a 100% flood. And, like others, I'd love to hear the explanation of how that would have turned the Earth to plasma!

644. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107887 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Radesq: aeroplanes? Is that British for airplanes?

No, Radesq. It's the correct word for what you Americans insist on calling "airplanes". ;-)

645. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107879 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm

krisking: I think all you are saying here is that you cannot perceive God with the physical senses you possess.

No, I'm not talking about me. I'm simply pointing out that it's premature to start reflecting on God's reasons for doing things when you haven't demonstrated any evidence for the existence of a god at all, let alone the particular one (out of countless thousands of candidate gods) that you happen to believe in; let alone the alleged action you'd like us to contemplate the alleged god's alleged reasons for.

I don't suppose there are any atheists on this website who think that Christians have any physical evidence to support their beliefs. I suspect we're perfectly aware that the "evidence" you draw on is of an emotional and, if you insist on the word, spiritual nature.

The problem is, your emotions are not evidence of anything other than processes occurring in your own brain. They don't point to the reality of anything outside you. And for this reason they are simply useless when it comes to persuading others of your point of view.

646. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107865 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Well, I've just read all 210 posts and have to say I'm amazed that anyone is seriously surprised that the Christians are doing this.

This isn't a game: it's a serious battle between 2 approaches to life. And you could argue that "we started it" with the very books that the fleas are feasting on, and we then took it a stage further with our "Out" campaign. Until then, Christians had had everything their own way: but we have challenged that in a big way, and quite right too.

Did anyone seriously think the Christians were just going to say "Oh" and curl up in a ball and never be heard of again? Of course not.

Evangelism is at the heart of Christianity. Every Christian is urged to "spread the good news", though very many of them don't - in the UK, at least - and thank goodness for that. Every single campaign you care to think of depends on its members being active rather than simply passively agreeing with the actions taken by its leaders - evangelical Christianity (the campaign to "save" more and more people) is no different from any other in this respect.

If we appear to be taking the initiative, they will do everything in their power to take it and use it against us. The atheist "Out" campaign lends itself to imitation and parody. Don't get me wrong - I think it's excellent and I'm 100% behind the message of it, which is that, to get our group voice heard, ALL of us have to speak out, not just the 4 Horsemen and their ilk.

Frankly, if I were a PR consultant advising the Christians on how to respond to the atheists' Out campaign, my advice would have been to do exactly what they're doing: to take something that we've done and to twist it to give the Christian rather than the atheist message.

And all this talk of the Christians being despicably uncreative because they've used "our" idea rather overlooks the point that we borrowed it from someone else in the first place.

Let's not be naive in this battle. It is a battle between two groups of rivals. We may choose not to view it that way, but it's the way many Christians view it, and they will fight accordingly.

So I think they've been rather canny in doing this. None of which diminishes my disgust at the actual content of their "Out" campaign: "becareful (sic) little mind what you think" is, I think, one of the most sinister and disgraceful phrases I've heard in a very long time.

647. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107844 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 1:25 pm

krisking: But have you looked up WHY He did?

I'm afraid you're asking us to jump rather a lot of guns here.

First, provide evidence that there's a god at all.
Then provide evidence it's the one referred to in the Old Testament.
Then provide evidence that this god really did send a flood that covered the whole Earth and killed everything in it, except for Noah and his family and the animals who went in two by two ...

and THEN we can discuss why he did it.

648. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107841 by Paula Kirby on January 5, 2008 at 1:19 pm

I agree with just about everyone here: excellent discussion, excellent format, excellent speakers, and excellent, unintrusive moderation too. Very impressive all round.

We need more of this kind of thing: reasonable discussion between reasonable, intelligent adults. The antagonistic approach doesn't work anything like so well, for either side. For one thing, in a traditional debate format it's all too easy to switch off mentally when "the other side" is speaking, or to fast forward to "our" bit; but in a discussion like this you simply can't follow unless you've listened carefully to everything that's been said.

Much more interesting and much more productive this way.

Did anyone else notice Pascal's Wager being brought up in the Q&A yet again? (Though Sam chose to ignore it.) I find it incredible that theists should keep raising it, as though it somehow strengthened their case, when in reality it is the most shameless appeal to disingenuousness and downright dishonesty I've ever encountered. If I were still a theist, I'd be embarrassed to use it.

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

Comment #106331 by Paula Kirby on January 2, 2008 at 5:07 pm

OK, thanks to both of you. All good stuff. But now I can feel too many of my neurons self-destructing so I'm going to call it a day :-)

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

Comment #106325 by Paula Kirby on January 2, 2008 at 4:56 pm

It so happens that a discussion on another forum I take part in has turned to something similar, and someone there has just made this point:

Incidentally having extra neurons doesn't result in increased brain size, because, if you reflect, a baby's head is considerably smaller than an adult's but contains (at birth) around 10 times more neurons.

Which seems to my addled nearly-1am brain to be a reasonable statement. So would it be reasonable to assume the reverse - that a large brain does not necessarily mean a lot of neurons?