651. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105652 by Paula Kirby on January 1, 2008 at 12:25 pm

But I've heard that no one gets to change his/her mind. It's more accurate to say that your mind is changed for you. Does anyone find this compelling?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting, Roach. That it's not possible to "change your mind" for yourself, but that it always requires something external - someone persuading you to change your mind, for instance? Have I understood you correctly?

652. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105633 by Paula Kirby on January 1, 2008 at 10:42 am

Shaker:
Oh blimey. OK, let me post it again:

[joke] Huh! Most of the men I've been involved with have been a handicap in their own right :-) [/joke]

Better now? :-)

653. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105623 by Paula Kirby on January 1, 2008 at 9:10 am

gd_edi, phil rimmer

Huh! Most of the men I've been involved with have been a handicap in their own right :-)

654. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105608 by Paula Kirby on January 1, 2008 at 7:59 am

I have posted the following comment:

Nice response, Steve.

655. A War On Science

Comment #105601 by Paula Kirby on January 1, 2008 at 7:38 am

53. Comment #105594 by Roger Stanyard on January 1, 2008 at 6:32 am

I think I feel a bit more optimistic than you do, Roger.

The fact that evolution is in the National Curriculum is great, but I for one went to school long before the NC came in and, despite having been at a Grammar School, am pretty certain that evolution wasn't taught in any of the lessons I was in. I'm sure it must have been covered in science classes, especially at A-level, but I focused on humanities, and only did one science as far as O-level - and it certainly wasn't included in that.

I vaguely knew what evolution was - "survival of the fittest" - but didn't have a clue as to the mechanism, or the timescales, or whether it was random or non-random, or that it could act on anything other than a whole organism. Nor did I have any idea of it clashing with the very mild form of Christianity I'd been exposed to as a child. I wasn't remotely hostile towards it - I was just uninformed.

If I'm honest, it's probably only in the last year or so (since starting to take part in discussions about atheism, which is where I was first exposed to the idea that evolution might be relevant to the argument as to whether there is or is not a god) that I started to take steps to find out more about it.

Looking back now, I'm appalled at how ignorant I was, especially since it's such an important subject. But there again, I had other interests, other questions that I was pursuing and investigating - and you can't do everything.

So I am quite sure that there are a LOT of people out there who don't know about evolution. Or who think they know what it is, but in fact don't. And that this ignorance isn't necessarily a sign that they actively don't WANT to know, or that they're opposed to the concept.

Nothing will reach the die-hards of course, but there are many people who are not resistant to knowledge - they just haven't been exposed to it properly. You're right: there will be many people who won't choose to watch the programme or who will watch it with closed minds; but there will be some - hopefully many - who will both watch it and learn something from it, and maybe even be inspired to find out more.

I spent all my life until just over a year ago convinced that I just didn't have the right kind of brain for science (my degree's in languages, and I was planning to do a Masters and possibly PhD in Medieval History). To me, science was a) boring and b) too hard. But TGD made me interested in reading RD's other books, and his other books convinced me that science wasn't just perfectly accessible and comprehensible, but was also absolutely fascinating. So now I'm doing a number of Open University science courses to find out more. Nothing very advanced as yet, admittedly - but if anyone had suggested 2 years ago that I'd ever actively want to study science, I'd have laughed them out of court.

So don't be too pessimistic - there's no knowing where something simple (like a TV programme) might lead for some people.

656. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105590 by Paula Kirby on January 1, 2008 at 5:55 am

Thanks for the link to the DT article, Epeeist. For those who haven't read it, it starts with:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Church in England and Wales, said most parents did not want their children to be taught that marriage was just "one lifestyle choice among many". The cardinal said the traditional family remained central to the well-being of society but was being dangerously eroded.

If this is really what he believes, I can't help wondering why he has opted for a "lifestyle choice" that actively prevents him from contributing to the well-being of society in this way...

657. A War On Science

Comment #105580 by Paula Kirby on January 1, 2008 at 5:19 am

In addition, it would great if leading scientists could somehow join forces and come up with something like a prime-time TV special to re-introduce evolution to the general public in the US… and straighten out the many myths and misconceptions regarding this subject... AND most importantly, the difference between what a "theory" means to science vs. the laypersons understanding. This is one of the most annoying aspects of this debate and it comes up over and over again.
Does anyone think something like this could help, or am I just dreaming?

Yes, I agree it could help, Double Bass Atheist, and the good news is that on one of the other threads on this site I read that RD is making a programme about evolution for Channel 4. And I'm sure Channel 4 will try very hard indeed to get it shown on US TV too - though whether they succeed or not is another matter! Let's hope they do.

You're so right: too many people don't understand what the theory of evolution actually is, and then dismiss it as untenable because the distorted version they've got in their heads is - quite literally - incredible.

658. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105335 by Paula Kirby on December 31, 2007 at 9:37 am

Steve, I agree on the t-shirt. In fact that is going on my facebook now

Ah well, if people are going to start USING it (and you're very welcome!) I think it could be made a little slicker. How about:

Religion: Iron Age solutions for 21st century challenges
or
Religion: Because 21st century challenges need Iron Age solutions

And technically I suppose it should be "Christianity" rather than "Religion".

659. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105324 by Paula Kirby on December 31, 2007 at 9:08 am

Religion is an ethical and intellectual sea anchor, holding people back from dealing rationally with an ever increasing number of important issues.

Yes, that's a very good point, Steve.

Religion: tackling 21st century challenges with Iron Age solutions.

660. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105323 by Paula Kirby on December 31, 2007 at 9:02 am

"I am glad I am simplistic, I pray god keeps me that way."

Hurrrummpphhhh. Now there's one prayer that IS likely to be answered ...

661. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105319 by Paula Kirby on December 31, 2007 at 8:53 am

I watched "Jesus Camp" the documentary film on A&E television last night. My estimation of the probability of belief being a net plus is pretty low at this time.

Yes, I can imagine! Personally I think it's pretty low anyway - for me any benefits perceived are massively offset by the fact that it's all extremely likely to be based on a delusion.

I can accept that many people have found great comfort in their religious beliefs, so the benefit of religion is certainly not zero; but personally I'd rather face the bald, scary truth any day than seek comfort in a fairytale.

662. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105311 by Paula Kirby on December 31, 2007 at 8:35 am

What Prof Dick Joyce may have been looking for is a mathematically defined probability for God's existence.

I thought he was looking for a mathematically defined probability, not of God's existence, but of religion being a good thing in itself. (Or an evil thing, depending on how you phrased the question/viewed the result.)

In other words, it's perfectly possible, as RD said in the programme, that the probability of God's existence is somewhere close to 0, but that the probability of belief in God having an overall beneficial effect could be very much higher.

The question of whether religious belief itself does more good or harm overall would, I agree, be a very interesting one - but, as RD pointed out, it's an entirely different one from the question of whether gods actually exist or not.

If it were to be shown that there was a high probability that religion was, on balance, beneficial to society, there'd be no reason for any atheist to stop being an atheist. (In fact, it would be downright illogical to do so.) But in that event we might want to reconsider the degree of hostility that we felt and expressed towards religions.

663. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #105020 by Paula Kirby on December 30, 2007 at 10:50 am

This just takes the biscuit....

Yes, very worrying indeed.

Might I just highlight the fact that it's the National Secular Society - again - that seems to be taking the lead in the UK in speaking out against the influence of religion in public life. I am more and more impressed with them. If anyone (in the UK) is looking for an atheist organisation to join, I can't think of any other that's standing up and being counted in such a consistent way, week in, week out. /endplug ;-)

664. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104783 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 12:20 pm

But exorcism is in a sense an expression of opinion.

Yes, I suppose it is! But are people to have no protection against any expression of opinion, no matter what form it takes? Giving someone a good thumping is an expression of opinion too, and there are laws against that.

The problem is, amongst the minority of people who believe in exorcism, won't that be tried before or even instead of medical intervention? And how can we be sure that the "patient", "victim", or whatever we should call them, is a willing participant in the performance? Shouldn't they be protected from having something inflicted on them without their informed consent - particularly when there is NO reason to believe it cannot possibly do more good than harm?

Someone who genuinely believes themselves to be demon-possessed needs medical treatment urgently and, as Sleep of Reason's post shows, failure to provide it can prove fatal.

Then there are others, I can imagine, who don't believe themselves demon-possessed because of any genuine psychiatric problem, but as a result of repeated harrassment and hectoring by those who disapprove of them for some reason and choose to see the cause in demon possession. Don't these people deserve protection from this kind of mental abuse as well? Not least because, in the cases we've all no doubt heard of, accusations of this kind are often accompanied by brutality of other kinds too.

It seems to me that there's no way someone could ever be deemed to have given their informed and rational consent to exorcism - since by definition they are either seriously mentally disturbed, or helpless victims of the abuse of the very people who wish to carry it out.

You may be right, and the law may well be too blunt an instrument to use. But who wouldn't want to see society rid of such madness?

665. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104772 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Why would you want to outlaw exorcism? The exorcism itself wasn't the problem it was the substitution of it for proper medical care for mental illness that led to the crime.

Can you think of any instance where it might be beneficial?

666. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104765 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 11:45 am

During the Inquest the idiot responsible stuck to his guns that he was not responsible and that it was demonic possession. And, because exorcism is not illegal the UK Crown Prosecution Service could not take any action

What a terrible story, Sleep of Reason. This stuff is so bizarre, it's easy to forget that there are real lives being destroyed as a result of it. Thanks for reminding us.

The reason I picked out this particular part of your post rather than the rest is that it just horrifies me that in a reasonably civilised country in the 21st century there should be no legal protection against madness of this sort.

And the mischievous part of my brain is wondering how the so-called liberals would react if there were ever a serious attempt to pass a law against exorcism in the UK. It would be interesting to see, wouldn't it ...

667. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104758 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 11:12 am

Ever since Constantine highjacked the Council of Nicea in 325 AD Religion, especially the Roman Catholic Church, has been about power and control and nothing more.

Fans of "In Our Time" on BBC Radio 4 in the UK will probably already know that the Nicene Creed - complete with its religious and political ramifications - was the topic of the latest edition, and that it can be listened to or downloaded from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/

If you're not yet familiar with In Our Time, you're missing out on a real treat. You can listen to back editions from the last several series via the website.

668. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104747 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 10:36 am

I really wish any information originating at The Daily Mail was banned from this website.

It was in the Telegraph Online too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PPAW22F1KE3CTQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/12/29/wexor129.xml

Actually, it's well worth reading the Telegraph version if only for the addendum at the end where an RC bishop has claimed that some teenagers want to be abused ... I kid you not.

669. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104745 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 10:29 am

Corylus:If I am right, (and if it gets worse, as it often does) then I predict increased rumours coming out of the Vatican. For example; tales of mood swings (especially bursts of incandescent anger at any form of teasing or ridicule); lack of tolerance for any other individuals within his organisation holding significant power; the turning against former allies due to thinly veiled paranoia, and; worst of all; a complete lack of concern for the welfare of the people over which he has control.

Oh my God. Just like Stalin and Hitler. So the Pope's turning into an atheist now?

*NB. This is a joke. Please do not lynch me.*

670. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104689 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 6:01 am

The denial sounds rather qualified to me

Yes, I agree. The Vatican seems to have left itself some wiggle room.

671. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104688 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 5:58 am

And there's no contradiction. Examine your logic.

Sorry, still stuck on yours. It seems that you can interpret his intention whereas it's foolish for someone else to attempt to do so.

The AB may be contradictory when it comes to the details, but overall you may be sure he's as keen to hinder the rise of atheism as all the others. So if he ropes RD into his pronouncements, it's because he's in some way trying to neutralise his impact. The idea that he's genuinely expressing praise for him strikes me as rather naive.

672. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104682 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 5:47 am

Rather I suspect he was rather pointing to a shared awe of the universe.

But for a purpose, John, for a purpose. In any case, does your suggestion not rather contradict what you say 2 sentences earlier?

673. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104680 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 5:43 am

Still not a huge fan of the Pope though...

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to take to me!

Makes you wonder what's going on behind the scenes at the Vatican, though, doesn't it. I mean, the Daily Mail might have made the whole thing up, of course, but it's also possible that the Official Exorcist (what a job title!) had been told something that genuinely led him to believe there was about to be a change of policy; or perhaps the Exorcist was just trying to force a change of policy by announcing it as a fait accompli; or maybe there really was such a plan but they decided to deny it when they realised it would cause publicity of the wrong kind. Or maybe they don't want Satan to KNOW that they're preparing an onslaught on him? Forewarned is fore-armed, after all.

Frankly, any of the above seem perfectly plausible to me! :-)

674. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104677 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 5:34 am

Do you have a link to info on the denial? Thanks.

Courtesy of MouthAlmighty's post (no. 41 on this thread), I do:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55627

675. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104673 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 5:27 am

Does this sound familiar yet?

Well, yes, it does, Mike, but before too many of us go rushing off to hide our broomsticks and re-home our cats, perhaps we should bear in mind that the Vatican appears to have denied the report!

676. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104668 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 5:19 am

bah, does anyone else loss comments posted to this board because they are logged out?

Not any more, Automath! Having learned the hard way that the system logs you out and therefore doesn't actually process your post if you take more than a few minutes over it, I now ALWAYS make a point of highlighting my text and copying it into memory before even previewing it, let alone submitting it. Then, if I do get logged out, I can just log back in and paste the text into the box as before. Simpler than saving the text in a separate text editor, which is the suggestion shown in italics above the "Post a comment" box.

677. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104662 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 5:14 am

Then again the ambiguity may be deliberate.

I am absolutely convinced the ambiguity was deliberate. In fact, I am equally convinced that in the minds of most "true Anglicans", there'd be very little ambiguity at all: even an atheist as prominent as RD is in thrall to the wonders of God's creation. In other words, he is experiencing God - he's just blinding himself to the reality. Atheism is therefore just a wilful refusal to acknowledge reality.

The Archbishop, however daffy he may seem, is far from intellectually lacking and he'll have had a reason for referring to RD in this way. And you may be sure his aim is to weaken atheism, not strengthen it.

678. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104651 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 4:29 am

Anyone got the pope's e-mail addy?
I'm busting with ideas.

It's benedictxvi@vatican.va

Do let us know what you write :-)

679. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104647 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 4:13 am

Hmm, who knows, MouthAlmighty? One Vatican official says one thing, another says another. The fact that the Vatican has an official exorcist at all says a lot about it, whether this latest report proves to be true or not.

I was interested to read the first comment posted on the denial report:

We need many more exorcists in the world, but sadly many bishops no longer believe in the devil and thus are helping him. The U.S. alone apparently has over 8,000 Satanic covens. Father Amorth's books are excellent and make clear that demonic possession is very real and widespread today. He apparently uses the Old Rite of Exorcism because he says the New Rite does not work.

That last sentence is just wonderful.

680. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104645 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 4:08 am

Is there some sort of compilation of Ratzi's insane pronouncements somewhere? Could someone make one? It would be nice to have, for when the next "sophisticated theologian" starts pretending theists don't take Biblical nonsense literally. Just a thought.

Actually, it's a very good thought, Rasco. Like the books of Bush-isms. It would be an absolutely gem. We'd need to extend it well beyond the Ratz though - since the evangelicals wouldn't take any notice of him anyway. A compendium of religious madness from around the world. Seriously - it could be a great weapon to have in our armoury: something that would make people laugh and gasp, and go a long way to dispelling the myth that these people are worth listening to.

The only problem is, it would need a good editor: otherwise it would be the size of the Bible, the Complete Works of Shakespeare and War and Peace, all rolled into one.

681. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104624 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 2:46 am

To judge from that photo, they won't have to look far to find their first candidate for exorcism ...

682. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104613 by Paula Kirby on December 29, 2007 at 2:13 am

I'd been trying for a while to get Cosmos on DVD from Amazon.co.uk but without success - they only had it in the N. American format.

However, they've now got it in European format, available for pre-order at £26.24. Expected despatch date roughly 4 Feb.

Thought I'd pass on the good news ...

683. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104342 by Paula Kirby on December 28, 2007 at 10:51 am

The Archbishop also singled out for praise the atheist Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor recently outed as a carol singer, whom he described as being in touch with the "amazement and awe" of God's creation.

Yeah, yeah, in other words: God's so wonderful, even the world's most famous atheist is gobsmacked by him. Fortunately, who cares what the Archbishop of Canterbury says? The bit about RD making a programme on evolution for Channel 4 is, however, very good news indeed.

684. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103624 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 10:18 am

139. Comment #103619 by gr8hands on December 26, 2007 at 10:13 am
Nice post, Gr8hands!

685. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103559 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 7:47 am

What about the irony of priests living in celibate who oppose homosexuals? If their beliefs are somewhat based on evolution, shouldn't they fight against celibacy too and hate themselves?

But just because something has evolutionary roots doesn't mean that we're necessarily conscious of the fact, does it?

Priests oppose homosexuality because it is outlawed by their religion. But because I don't see religious "laws" as anything other than a reflection of the de facto behavioural norms generally adhered to in a particular prehistoric society, I'm interested to explore where and why homophobia arose in the first place.

Steve doesn't agree with my suggestion that evolution played a role, and that's fair enough - I'm not confident of it myself, it was just a thought. But with the exception of the Ancient Greeks, homophobia seems to have been pretty much the norm throughout human history. And whilst religions have undoubtedly played a huge role in perpetuating that situation (and consequently, it has taken the decline in religious influence across the world for homophobia to become less acceptable), for the reason given above I don't think it automatically follows that the phenomenon itself actually STARTED as a result of religion.

Where do you think it comes from originally? Is it just fear of those who are different in some way, do you think? In which case, are we not back to group behaviour and the rejection of anything that appears to threaten the safety and harmony of the tribe?

And a related question - what was it about the Ancient Greeks, I wonder, that led them to take a different view?

I don't know the answers - I'm just thinking aloud.

686. Man and God

Comment #103528 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 6:24 am

My postings to richarddawkins.net have been stalked by a fuckwit fundamentalist pastor

Good grief, Roger. Not sure how to respond to that. There are some seriously crazy people out there.

687. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103522 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 4:04 am

Oh dear. I missed this. This is such a common justification for homophobia, and it is so easily shown to be wrong by even a brief study of Nature.

I don't see homophobia as justifiable under any circumstances, Steve. I would see it as possibly having an "explanation", but not a "justification".

Reproduction is not about the survival of genes in an individual's body. It is about survival of the gene wherever it is. Therefore there are circumstances where assisting parents or siblings in the raising of children can confer an evolutionary advantage. Having a certain proportion of the population as non-reproducing can be selected for.

Well, I'm non-reproducing myself so it's nice to know that doesn't make me a complete evolutionary disaster! Mind you, I don't assist anyone else in raising their children either ... unless it's by chasing the little brats out of my garden ...

Seriously, you make a good point, Steve. Given that, by definition, very few gay people have offspring, and given that, despite this, the gay population remains at roughly 10% or so I believe, it seems perfectly reasonable that there would be some kind of survival benefit in their presence in a social group.

So how do you account for the widespread hostility to homosexuality? Do you see it as JUST the product of religious taboo? Even THAT must have had its origin in a feeling already generally held, surely?

688. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103520 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 3:51 am

Evolution is not about 'society's survival.'

Agreed. But all the same, we are social animals, and the success or failure of our local group/tribe/whatever you want to call it is of importance to us as individuals, and to the survival of ourselves as individuals.

If we are going to deny the link between the good of the individual and the good of the "tribe", it seems to me we'll have to revisit the standard atheist explanations for the origin of morality as well.

PS. And before anyone misinterprets me, I'm not suggesting that homosexuality is immoral! :-) Just pointing out how the original, widespread objection to it might have arisen.

689. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103516 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 3:36 am

Also, regarding offense. There may be no right not to be offended. But that should not prevent people saying when they are. It works both ways.

Fair enough. But someone on this thread (can't remember who) suggested that AtheistJon shouldn't have voiced his personal feelings on this subject because they might cause offence.

And if that principle applies, we should all immediately stop voicing our personal feelings about religion too, since we know for sure that they cause offence.

690. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103513 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 3:33 am

I would have hoped that in a modern civilized society someone would have the decency to say
"I have this gut feeling, but I realise it is not objectively legitimate" for certain feelings such as homophobia and racism.

Well, it depends what you really mean by "objectively legitimate". Is it not objectively legitimate for someone to experience subjective responses? I would argue it's what a person does about their response that really matters.

And on this point, AtheistJon wrote "I have not once said that I would in any way penalize somebody for homosexuality. Only that I find it personally revolting."

You may be thinking that he's tried to "objectively legitimise" his feelings by writing "In the case of homosexuality, I'm willing to bet there's a very rational and biologically based scientific explanation for why my body feels disgusted when I am forced to see gay men in the act" - and maybe he has.

But is it really so unthinkable that the mechanics of evolution by natural selection would have left a legacy of revulsion about homosexuality - after all, gay relationships are guaranteed to be offspring-free and therefore not in the interests of one's own or the society's survival. If this is the case, then the feeling AtheistJon refers to may well have some objective legitimacy in this sense.

That doesn't mean for one moment that we can't or shouldn't rise above such feelings. But I don't see why someone should be thrown to the lions for acknowledging that they have them, all the same.

691. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103507 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 2:44 am

If we want to talk about making moral judgements or defining legislation we have to realise that our instinctive reactions need to be open to scrutiny, by both others and ourselves

Yes, that makes perfect sense, Corylus. Our instinctive, emotional responses to things are a poor basis for either judgement or legislation. But for that very reason, I think it's important that people are not bullied into not acknowledging their instinctive, emotional responses or feeling so ashamed of them that they then rush into espousing their opposite - for reasons that are equally instinctive and emotional!

Someone who experiences an instinctive feeling of repugnance at the sight of men kissing and who acknowledges the fact but also recognises that it is JUST an instinctive feeling, not the basis for rational decision-making, is vastly to be preferred over the person who experiences the same feeling but interprets it as meaning that the action that gave rise to it should be outlawed or the men who were kissing should be beaten up.

The first is an instinctive feeling acknowledged but not submitted to, the second is an instinctive feeling treated as though it had some kind of objective legitimacy.

692. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103505 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 2:25 am

Interesting, how the real venom in the arguments on this site always seems to get saved for people who dare to disagree with the Authorised Version regarding questions that aren't really anything to do with religion and/or atheism at all. Vegetarianism was a recent example. Now views about homosexuality.

This is a public forum that exists for discussion between people who think of themselves as atheists, or between people who want to discuss atheism, religion etc. Why should any of us even WANT to invite someone with views we don't agree with to leave the forum, let alone feel we have the right to do so? If we feel THAT strongly about the views someone is expressing, we can either wade in with our rational arguments as to why they are mistaken, or we can leave the thread ourselves: it's not as if there aren't plenty of others to go to. But telling someone to piss off because they have the audacity to post something you don't agree with is hardly a rational or liberal way to respond.

Are there No-Go areas for dissent on this free-thinking site? Since when has causing offence to others been the dominant fear in here?

AtheistJon has a point - there is a sense, reading this thread, of someone being pounced on for having acknowledged a feeling that some of you find repugnant. He certainly acknowledged a feeling of repugnance when seeing gay men kiss, but there was no indication that he'd start assaulting them, even verbally, the way some of you have verbally assaulted him here.

Not so very long ago, someone (I can't remember who) wrote an article in which she wrote that "No one has the right never to be offended" and that was met with whoops of joy and agreement on this forum - no doubt because she was referring to the tendency of the religious lobby to take offence over every little sign that they're not getting things entirely their own way.

Well, it applies to other subjects too.

Some people here are reacting as if feeling repulsed by seeing men kissing is as bad as wanting to see homosexuality made or kept illegal, opposing gay marriage, opposing equal rights for gays, advocating discrimination against gays etc etc etc.

How is this different from the Christian notion - that we have ridiculed elsewhere - that even THINKING "sinful" thoughts is as bad as actually "sinning"?

Is it not possible that it might actually be a sign of GREATER tolerance and libertarianism to support gay rights despite a feeling of repugnance at the sight of men kissing, than it is to support gay rights in the absence of such repugnance? You could argue that, in one sense, support for gay rights "costs" the first person more than the second.

And a troll, by the way, is not just someone who disagrees with you.

EDIT:

I only sought from you the first step on the road to decency, remorse.

Have just read this comment. It could be straight out of the mouth of an evangelical. Repent and salvation shall be yours!

693. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103431 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 3:18 pm

By the way, nobody commented on the question I posted earlier: How do you get the photo icon next to your name?

Hi Jon

Click on your name as displayed in one of your posts. Then select User Control Panel (towards top left of the screen). Click on Profile. Then, from the list of options to the left of the screen, select Edit Avatar. You can upload an image from there.

I think you've been given a bit of a rough ride here. I understood you to be saying that you find the sight of 2 men kissing to be repugnant, but that you wouldn't support any kind of outlawing or suppression of homosexuality and you don't believe it to be in any way immoral, and you wouldn't discriminate against a person on the basis of their homosexuality. That doesn't seem to me to be such an outrageous position to take.

It literally turns my stomach when I see people eating oysters - but that doesn't mean I secretly want to ban oysters or persecute the oyster-eaters. Disliking something doesn't automatically make someone a raving fascist!

694. Man and God

Comment #103425 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 2:45 pm

There have been some really fascinating and - for me - eye-opening posts here tonight. Thanks for all of them. I really feel for those of you who don't feel able to be open about your atheism. It's not that I go round talking about nothing else myself, but I'm fortunate in that I certainly never need to actively hide it. I'm full of admiration for those of you who are atheists in such difficult circumstances. Hats off to you all.

The posts on evangelicalism/liberalism have been interesting too. Loads to think about there. I think Mark may be on to something when he suggests that liberals have room to manoeuvre in their faith, so particular questions that jar are more easily accommodated. I remember myself taking such a liberal view on individual questions - not believing this literally, not believing that literally - that when I finally woke up and asked myself what I did actually believe then, I was shocked to find it didn't make any sense whatsoever! But I'd been unwittingly keeping that secret from myself for some time by then.

Thanks again to everyone who's posted tonight - it's been fascinating.

695. Man and God

Comment #103422 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Off topic: I heard someone I knew yesterday say that they wouldn't vote for Obama for president because they didn't want a muslim running the country. Just thought I'd chuck it out there. I started to explain that he wasn't a muslim until I realized the trap that I had fallen into and shut up.

Obama bin Laden for President!

696. Man and God

Comment #103410 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Paula - I'm a former Traditional Roman Catholic (e.g. those who reject Vatican II) who studied intensely the Christian faith and Roman Catholicism specifically for many years.

Well, that's got my curiosity racing too! Is someone more likely to abandon their faith and become an atheist if they've been a "hardliner" in their former religion than a liberal, do you think?

I ask, because I'm aware of quite a few people on this site now who've self-identified as having previously been evangelicals or missionaries or, in your case, FightingFalcon, from the traditional wing of the church - but I don't think I'm aware of anyone other than myself who used to be a liberal Christian. Yet, actually, I now believe the liberal interpretation of Christianity to be even less defensible than the fundamentalist approach - at least there is an internal logic to what the fundies believe, provided you accept the original premise - that there's a God and that he spoke via the bible.

Anyone else got any thoughts on the relative likelihood of fundies / liberals losing their faith?

697. Man and God

Comment #103407 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 1:17 pm

However, in my case, I work for a devoutly Christian company here in the US. My atheism would cost me my job.

In your shoes I would keep my alias too, Double Bass Atheist - no question about it. We have no need of atheists being thrown to the lions. Let's leave martyrdom to the religious - they're so good at it.

But I'm really intrigued now. Please believe me when I say that my questions stem from genuine curiosity and not from any doubt of the truth of what you say. What do you mean by "devout Christian company"? That the owners are devout Christians? Or that they impose that on their employees in some way? In which case - what ways? Is keeping silent enough for you to avoid hassle - or do you actually have to participate in Christian activities?

Is it legal in the US to recruit and/or fire staff on the basis of their religion or lack of it (other than in religion-related jobs, of course)? Is everyone else in the company a Christian? - or perhaps you have no way of telling, if no one dares "come out" as a non-Christian. I don't doubt you AT ALL, but this conjures up the most bizarre image. I've worked for religious employers before now, but have never been aware of discrimination against non-believers. But I'm in the UK, not the US ...

698. Man and God

Comment #103393 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Well, RD.net is still the best!

Couldn't agree more :-))

699. Man and God

Comment #103387 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 11:40 am

Most sites give a prompt about "you've already registered an account under that email address".

Well, this one did too, actually! Luckily I had a second email address I could give.

700. Man and God

Comment #103384 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 10:53 am

Paula, trying to chase you down *pant pant*

You've found me! Glad you liked the pics. You're right - the moon was startlingly bright last night. I took a few photos of that too, with the skyline in silhouette beneath - but nowhere near as good as the one from NASA. Hope you've got your breath back now ...