701. 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!

702. 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.

703. 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!

704. 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?

705. 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 ...

706. 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 :-))

707. 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.

708. 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 ...

709. Man and God

Comment #103379 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 10:29 am

Thank you for pointing that out Steve...even though it would not be a problem for me to "reveal" myself. I have only just joined up and there is a certain comfort in anonyminity. As in "What! Who? Me?...I never said that"!! amongst others!

And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, Verylee. You're quite right - it can be a bit daunting posting in a public forum at first. If anonymity helps whilst you get used to it and gradually feel more confident about doing it, that's absolutely fine.

And I really like your alias too. I always want your posts to start with the words, "...I say unto thee ..."

710. Man and God

Comment #103371 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 10:03 am

A warm welcome to you, Mark!

Seconded!

And I agree with Steve's other comment too - there shouldn't be any pressure, and for some people there will be good reasons why using an alias is the right thing to do.

Still, it would be nice if people who don't have any reason to fear the consequences "came out" too. I'm sure there are lots more out there who only signed up with an alias in the first place because it seemed to be the normal thing to do here - I was certainly one of those.

But absolutely no problem if people don't want to.

711. Man and God

Comment #103357 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 9:09 am

Yeah, but Paula Kirby is one of those relatively generic names.

Well, yes, but to be fair, there's only one of me where I work ;-)))

712. Man and God

Comment #103353 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 9:00 am

PS Congratulations Northern Bright for using your full name on this site. In today's bigoted world that takes true courage.

Thanks, KaiserKriss, but I don't think I can really lay claim to courage. I can't really think of any potentially terrible consequences of having "come out" openly - besides, I was always using my own photo, so it wouldn't have taken long for someone who'd known me to put two and two together if they'd happened upon this site.

I'm sure there are people out there whose circumstances make dropping anonymity difficult or even unwise - but I can't claim to be one of them. For me it was more a question of preferring openness to unnecessary furtiveness - so the alias just had to go :-)

713. Man and God

Comment #103347 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 8:34 am

My Bible studies are what lead me to reject the supernatural and become an atheist.

Music to my ears, Dower. Good for you.

714. Man and God

Comment #103342 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 8:22 am

Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject isThe Book of British Birds".

Yes, they love to portray us atheists as people who don't know what it's like to feel faith - it's so inconvenient for their case that a large number of us are former Christians ourselves.

I'd love to get a feel for how large that number is though. When people register on this site, they're asked if they've read TGD. Maybe they should be asked if they are or ever have been a religious believer too. It would be interesting to know. My gut feel, just from reading the comments here and elsewhere is that probably around 40% of us have. If I'm right, that would be a large minority to write off as "knowing not whereof they speak", wouldn't it?

715. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #103329 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 5:44 am

Frankly we're quite tired of all the political hoop-la, and there's still 11 months to go :/

Yes - another rather baffling element of US elections as far as we bemused European onlookers are concerned! In the UK we know roughly when an election is looming, and it's detectable in a number of politicians' statements and decisions etc for up to a year before ... but at least the official campaigning is limited to, what, 5 or 6 weeks, or thereabouts.

But, hey, there must be better things to do on Christmas Day than talk about politics. It's a beautiful, bright, sunny day outside, hard frost on the ground - perfect winter weather. So I'm going to take my dog for a walk.

By the way, this is sooooooooo off topic, but if you'd like to see some pics of the Scottish Highlands, taken yesterday, you just need to click on the link, then "View Album", then (for best effect) "Slideshow" (from the list on the right): http://www.cig.canon-europe.com/a?i=muibKdETLC

Merry Tuesday ;-)

716. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103323 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 5:23 am

2 fleas for the Christmas week

Surely the biblically required number for Christmas week should be 3? Or did the Christians have difficulty finding enough wise men?

717. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #103322 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 5:19 am

First off, let me state unequivocally that Mike Huckabee has no chance of winning the presidency.

I sincerely hope you're right, Fighting Falcon, because I found this a very disturbing article.

I simply don't know enough of US politics to know whether this guy stands any chance of being nominated or not, let alone elected or not - but from what I can make out of the candidates from both parties so far, there doesn't seem to be a single one who stands out as "good news". But you're right - I'm a long way removed from the action and I'm not qualified to comment.

Those of you who ARE there and will have a vote - who currently seems like the best candidate to you, and why? Or is that question too contentious, even for richarddawkins.net? ;-)

718. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102942 by Paula Kirby on December 24, 2007 at 2:40 am

Paula Kirby – Totally off topic…. why did you change your alias from 'Northern Bright'? I always liked that one.

Well, yes, I liked it too, Double Bass Atheist. I just can't think of any good reason for me to hide behind an alias and I'm increasingly coming to the view that we atheists need to stand up and be counted. I can imagine that some people's circumstances might make it difficult for them to "come out" under their own names - but that's not remotely the case for me.

To be honest, I only ever signed up with an alias in the first place because it seemed to be standard practice on this website. I'd never have even thought of it otherwise.

719. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102937 by Paula Kirby on December 24, 2007 at 2:27 am

I guess I am asking for a a little more than a free 'ATHEIST' T-shirt.

I'm with you, Styrer. I love this forum and look in and take part as often as I can (though I find I occasionally need a mini-break from it, as reading the same old same old theist nonsense in the featured articles, and the same old same old theist nonsense in some of the posts in response to them gets a bit wearying sometimes). But I agree wholeheartedly that we could be a lot more effective if we could somehow co-ordinate ourselves in some way. It's great to have a place to discuss, argue and vent - but it's going to take more than that to change the balance of power between religion and rationality in the world in any really meaningful way.

If anyone has any ideas as to how it might be done, I'd love to hear them.

PS. I'd like an "Atheist" pullover too. Or sweatshirt. Just not a t-shirt. Do you have any idea how often it's warm enough to wear a short-sleeved t-shirt in the north of Scotland?!?!

720. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102932 by Paula Kirby on December 24, 2007 at 2:12 am

Step 7: Many posters on RD's forum criticise the critiques of RD saying they haven't read TGD, again failing to recognise the irony inherent in a situation brought about by their non-reading of the aforementioned critiques and their brief critiques of them.

Well, I for one have read a number of the Flea books and have written reviews of them (which I believe are going to be appearing on this website at some point, so ADH and others can then critique my critique of the critiques to their hearts' content).

However, I can't say I found much evidence of either the first or the second claim contained in ADH's 6th point:

Some of the critiques (sic) of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work.

721. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102678 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 11:53 am

This is an exaggeration as the moral monsters of the twentieth century Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists and Hitler bitterly hated Jews and Christians.

YAY!!!!!!!!! No bishoply message would be complete without this bit! It would be like the gold and frankincense without the myrrh ...

722. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102661 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 11:28 am

About the people on the streets: I live in the USA; what else can I say?

I grieve for you, agg, I really do ;-) Sleep well.

723. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102652 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 11:16 am

agg

Paula, so God is naturally (as opposed to supernaturally) omnipotent? Does this not imply he's a product of Nature? (Yeah, I can be a sophist too).

Don't ask me. I didn't write that crap, I was just quoting it in reply to your question.

What I am more interested in is: Is this guy's view prevalent (or even common) in Christianity or is this a fringe phenomenon? And I guess I have to also ask about Christian theologians, because as we've seen what they think is not the same as what the masses think...

Cornwell is very much the theologian and ex-seminarian. Navel-gazing is what he does best. I wouldn't expect his views to reflect those of the Christian-in-the-street who, I suspect, would flip between God being natural and God being supernatural, depending on what would best fit their argument at the time.

724. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102630 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 10:20 am

agg

BTW, do all Christians claim that their God is supernatural?

No. John Cornwell, author of Darwin's Angel (a dreadful book if ever there was one) specifically claims that God ISN'T supernatural:

"The concept of 'supernatural' was originally developed to describe behaviour that outstrips the natural capacities of any creature.... So when you come to think about it: this phenomenon you call God is the one being who can NOT act supernaturally, for how could God outperform His natural abilities?"

Has he convinced you?

725. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102614 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 9:49 am

I got confirmed by some local bishop at 12. He died later the same day of a heart attack. :-)

Hey - I like your style! :-)

726. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102582 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

But when we're talking about theological beliefs for the purpose of philosophical discussions (whether God answers prayers) I don't think what the masses believe is particularly relevant. To engage an ideology we have to speak to its official position (if it has one) on the issue at hand, not what the lay believers believe

I don't know about your religious background, Bonzai - am I right in thinking you've never been a Christian? I was, for many years, and attended services of a range of denominations - Methodist, United Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Brethren, Episcopalian, Free Church of Scotland (ugh) and Catholic, and cannot recall having EVER been to a service where prayers of intercession were not offered or where there was any suggestion that God would not answer prayer when offered "in Jesu's name".

Yes, you'll find theologians who'll put a more sophisticated spin on it, but I don't get the impression that the majority of their theologian colleagues would agree with them. And at the level of the average Christian we'll be encountering on a day-to-day basis, belief in the efficacy of prayer is very widespread indeed.

Furthermore, if you read some of the flea books, as I have, you'll see that "answered prayer" continues to be hawked about as one of the "proofs" of God's existence.

You're ahead of your time, Bonzai! Give it another 20 years and the believers may have caught up with you, but I don't see more than the occasional sign that they're getting there already.

727. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102568 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 8:40 am

I think the Calvinists don't. I am not sure about the Anglicans (and Episcopalians) but there are Anglican theologians who don't buy into the notion of prayers for intercession.

You may well be right about the Calvinists. The Anglicans and Episcopalians certainly do, though. And, let's face it, there are Anglican theologians who don't buy into the notion of the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, but this is not what's taught in their churches. What the theologians believe is frequently quite different from what gets flogged to the masses - as we've discussed many times before.

728. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102556 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 8:14 am

Um..I don't think it is a universal theistic belief that God answers prayers.

No, Bonzai, I'm sure you're right. I was just pre-empting a particular claim that I've heard made a number of times by liberal Christians - i.e. that God doesn't differentiate between the different religions, since they're all routes to him anyway - rendering the test I proposed of whether the prayers of one religion were consistently answered where the prayers of another weren't, utterly meaningless.

That said, I don't actually know any Christians who would say outright that they don't believe God answers prayer. You get a few slightly more sophisticated ones who talk about prayer changing US because it opens a space for us to align ourselves with God's will blah blah, rather than God actually changing his plans as a result of it, but I think you'd still be hard pushed to show me a mainstream Christian church that doesn't do prayers of intercession ...

729. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102552 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 8:00 am

Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved.

Thanks for the quote, Dr Benway - that sums it up beautifully and, like Adrian, I shall be using that phrase myself from now on.

730. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102538 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 7:00 am

The real truth behind the British Airways cross controversy is presented by Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society. (A very good read)

http://www.secularism.org.uk/editorialchristianbulliespressth.html

Thanks for the link, Adrian - as you say, well worth reading.

731. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102515 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 4:28 am

Imagine, going back further, if the entirety of our developing scientific knowledge since the days of Copernicus and Galileo had kept confirming the descriptions and implicit assumptions of the Bible or some other holy book. I'd say in those circumstances that the truth of the relevant religion would have been massively corroborated.

Yes, good point, Russell. In a sense you could argue that God, if he exists at all, has already blown his chance to convince us of the fact. To continue to ask for evidence of his existence is rather like giving him a 10th, 100th, 1000th, 10000th chance, when an omnipotent, omniscient God surely wouldn't needed more than one.

At every point where it has so far been possible to test the truth-claims of the bible with respect to the natural world, they have been found wanting. Which rather suggests that, if convincing evidence of God WERE suddenly to emerge now, it would be a pretty inferior kind of god we'd be dealing with: one who deliberately fed us untruths for millennia.

732. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102492 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 2:28 am

79. Comment #102488 by Steve Zara on December 23, 2007 at 2:23 am
It's ok, Steve. Although my thoughts were prompted by what you'd written, they weren't intended as an argument with them. Just me pontificating to the world at large. Some of us just like the sound of our own keyboard :-)

733. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102491 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 2:25 am

Perhaps not entirely fair. The Anglicans rejected the idea of Hell years ago.

Ah, but did God? ;-)

734. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102490 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 2:25 am

It now includes comment from the National Secular Society

I'm increasingly impressed with the NSS. They seem to get everywhere and are excellent at getting the message across that religion is given far too much prominence in public life. Their measured responses also make the histrionics from the religious quarter look even more laughable.

By contrast, I've just unsubscribed from the UK Brights mailing list, because they don't seem to realise that there are more important issues at stake than what word we use to describe ourselves. Whatever word we use, the theists will throw enough mud at it to make it sound grubby again. It's the arguments we've got to win - not the name game.

735. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102480 by Paula Kirby on December 23, 2007 at 1:53 am

I have been thinking about this particular point for some time, and I am honestly not sure what evidence for a God could be.

Yes, I've had thoughts along these lines myself occasionally, but an omniscient and omnipotent god must surely be able to find a way, don't you think? ...

Stenger suggests as possible evidence the finding of a biblical message in the background "noise" from Big Bang. Or systematic research, properly controlled, that showed that the prayers of one religon were consistently answered whereas those of another were not. Or, if we're going to give a nod to the liberals who claim that all religions are routes to the same god and that therefore god answers ALL prayers equally, then systematic, properly controlled research showing that prayer works, full stop. And, as others have pointed out elsewhere, the Rapture would be pretty convincing.

But I take your point: it's hard to think of anything for which a natural explanation couldn't eventually be found.

For all that, I don't accept the term "fundamentalist" as applied to atheists. There's only one tenet of atheism to be fundamentalist about, and that's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Since that's actually the definition of atheism, it's hard to see how we could lose it without losing atheism altogether. Which would suit the theists down to the ground, of course.

No, these terms "fundamentalist" and "militant" have only been applied to atheists since we stopped accepting the non-speaking part that theists have assigned to us for millennia. The very fact that we're now speaking up and actively challenging belief, actively highlighting the lack of evidence for it, and challenging its claim to be the source of all that is good and moral and life-affirming, is enough to qualify us as fundamentalist militants in the eyes of those who stand to lose most by our success.

In reality we're no more fundamentalist or militant than any other group of people drawing attention to something they believe in. And we're a hell of a lot less militant than almost any religion you care to mention. If "desire to convince" is to be deemed synonymous with "militancy" and "fundamentalism", then every Christian bookshop you've ever been in is chock full of books by militant fundamentalists.

736. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102396 by Paula Kirby on December 22, 2007 at 3:33 pm

I am going to do a Sam Harris at the AAI, and put forward a controversial proposition:

Ah, you're a brave soul, Steve, I'll give you that!

Maybe the concept of a fundamental atheist is not nonsense. Perhaps it is someone who says "There is no God or Gods, and I am not interested in looking at any evidence for Gods. Even if there was evidence for Gods, I would refuse to believe it: I will stick by the Dogma that There Are No Gods."

Yes, it is possible to imagine such a person ... but considering how often the term "atheist fundamentalist" gets trundled out, I can't say I've met very many of them. Well, not any, actually!

Even the antitheists don't say they wouldn't believe in a god if there were evidence for one - they just say they think it would be better if there weren't.

I also think it's a bit hard to be a fundamentalist without a holy text to consider to be inerrant. Theists have fun suggesting that The Origin of Species or The God Delusion fill that void for atheists, but it wouldn't take more than a pretty cursory glance in any biology lab or this website to see that neither of them is swallowed hook line and sinker or without criticism - which is hardly the hallmark of a fundamentalist's holy text, is it?

737. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102385 by Paula Kirby on December 22, 2007 at 2:59 pm

52. Comment #102381 by Northern Bright on December 22, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Oops, sorry - force of habit led me to log in as Northern Bright again. But I'm not Northern Bright any more ... just me :-)

738. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102365 by Paula Kirby on December 22, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Dr Morgan's Christmas message comes after the general director of the Evangelical Alliance ... compared militant atheists to King Herod in their intolerance of religious faith.

Yes, well, fair point. The number of firstborn I've slayed this year is 20% up on last year's total, and a personal best. And my Christmas dinner wouldn't be complete without my trademark head of local preacher served on a silver platter. Mmm, lovely.

Honestly, these people are so used to making claims based on no evidence whatsoever that they eventually seem to lose all grip on reality. Very very bizarre.

739. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101832 by Paula Kirby on December 21, 2007 at 2:34 am

That's sort of what I was hoping for – suggests this conversation is keeping you open to alternative ideas.

Doh, I looked back in here this morning with no intention whatsoever of posting but found this and just had to. It may not have been intended to sound patronising, but I'm afraid it does to my ears - intensely so.

Have you been scrutinising the posts of the people who agree with you for signs that they're being kept open to alternative ideas too? Or your own, for that matter?

740. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101817 by Paula Kirby on December 21, 2007 at 2:18 am

Steve Zara

I have just realised what this is all about. It is homeopathy!

Brilliant! :-))

741. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101799 by Paula Kirby on December 21, 2007 at 1:58 am

perhaps it would be better if it was discussed academically in another environment

and

Oh, yes, I think it is confusing [for churchgoers]. I agree

A perfect example of the dualist approach to theology. There's the theology taught in academia, which is subtle and open to disputation. And then there's the theology taught in churches, which is basically "Keep it simple, they're not very bright."

742. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101469 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Nothing I'm saying is getting through is it?

LOL! I'm beginning to feel the same way. On the basis that there isn't actually a rule against agreeing to disagree, maybe we should just do that!

743. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101467 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 11:58 am

Paula – those religionists determined to put us down will say and will misrepresent us no matter what we say or do.

They will indeed fight us whichever way they can. But we don't have to hand them their ammunition on a plate.

744. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101456 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 11:37 am

Oh suuuure ..... Fool me once shame on ... you, fool me twice ... yuh caint get fooled again.

Shame on you, Brian - I do hope you're not implying I'm not a woman who keeps her word.

;-)

745. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101440 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 11:13 am

That is what I don't get. Why must a religious work be translated into a "purely secular one" in order that we, as atheists can appreciate?

Bonzai, it doesn't. And I haven't anywhere (intentionally) suggested that it does. I am absolutely NOT talking about what atheists can or cannot enjoy (who would I be to dictate that anyway, even if the very concept weren't meaningless?)

I like Steve's dieting analogy. There's no reason on earth why a dieter by definition shouldn't ENJOY eating chocolate. There may however be reasons why s/he would be better advised not to. (It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but the best I can come up with right now.)

On my drive home this evening I was thinking about the comments that "we're not at war". Assuming we're speaking metaphorically, then I disagree: I think we are. Our worldview is waging war against the religious worldview, and vice versa. Use the phrase "competing with", if you prefer. Either way, we have a "battle" to fight and win.

How long do you suppose we will have to wait in the New Year before we're all in here shrieking about how the Christians have twisted what we mean and have wilfully misrepresented us? Before we're furious with a Christian who claims that RD has said that teaching children about religion is child abuse? You know all those Christians who come in here convinced they know what TGD says, when it is crystal clear that they haven't read a word of it - where do you think they've got their information from? From a concerted campaign of misinformation conducted by the fundies, that's where.

We simply cannot expect the "enemy", the "opposition" - whatever term you want to use to describe the people who are most determined to STOP us getting our message across - to consider the nuances of our behaviour, or to give us the benefit of the doubt. If they see a SINGLE chink in our armour, they will exploit it for all it's worth. And not all the people they talk to about it will stop to consider the nuances either.

I was also thinking about your point about not letting the fundies affect our behaviour. It reminded me a bit of the Blitz spirit - all those civilians refusing to let a few doodlebugs stop them getting on with their lives. And that's all well and good. But they could only do that because at the same time there were armies that WERE actively fighting the enemy, and strategists who WERE actively trying to stay one step ahead and ensure the "home front" was as well defended as possible. In fact, those same civilians would have been pretty hacked off if someone, somewhere, hadn't been actively trying to ensure those doodlebugs were kept to the minimum number possible.

In the "war" on religion (or the campaign to promote atheism, if you prefer), I don't view myself as just another civilian. I see myself as part of the army. I want to advance atheism, not just discuss it. Let's not pretend the Christians won't stoop to fighting dirty. They'll fling all the mud they can - I just don't see the point of giving them more, and gift-wrapped.

Anyway, you'll be pleased to hear I'm not going to post on this topic again ....

746. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101393 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 9:52 am

Michael

Bonzai, in his recent post certainly echos my views on the the beautiful art and music the has been commisioned religious bodies.

And mine :-) Mozart's Requiem would be my "must have" piece of music on a desert island. But there again, that has completed the transition from being a purely religious work to being a purely secular one - with maybe just the very VERY occasional exception. Carols haven't.

Bonzai

I can't care less about PR; we are not at war.

You don't need to be at war to benefit from PR. Or to be left with egg on your face through not paying a bit of attention to it.

Paula Kirby

I'm definitely not going to post on this topic again

Oh, shut up woman, what do you know? :-)

747. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101364 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 9:22 am

there are certain species of sharks, that if kept in captivity, adapt by becoming hermaphroditic and actually produce offspring, so it is not entirely unfathomable that the same could have happened in the human world.

Is the Christian world ready for Mary the Holy Hermaphrodite, do you think? !!!!

748. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101358 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 9:18 am

Vaal

I hadn't realised that about the Scots! Does that mean that I have to crush my Scottish sister in law, or poor Northern Bright, sorry Paula.

No, hands off, I'm English. Though Scotland's my home now.

Bonzai - and others.
Just to clarify that I am not for one moment suggesting that atheists should not throw themselves with enthusiasm into the non-religious aspects of Christmas if they wish to. Or that it's not possible to sing carols without secretly somehow believing them or wishing to believe them. Nor do I feel sniffy about whether it is morally justifiable or not for atheists to sing carols.

My concern is purely connected to whether it is wise or not, whether it is helpful or not, for atheists to take part in a religious carol service.

Anyway, as I've said several times now, I'm definitely not going to post on this topic again ... ;-)

749. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101324 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 8:27 am

Diacanu:

Depends on if the desired action is destructively irrational enough for post-rationalization to matter one way or the other.
I submit that it is/does not.

I know. And I know we'll have to agree to differ on this one. It's just that impressions impress, and I do think that, in order to have maximum impact, we need to think about the impressions we create about ourselves. Even Al-Qaeda are evidently getting media-savvy these days. Like it or not (and I don't, particularly), PR does matter.

But I really will stop now. Unless a new thought occurs to me of course, in which case I don't suppose I shall be able to restrain myself ...

Oh, and Paula, is that the real you in your avatar?

LOL. Yes. Is that the real you in yours? ;-)

750. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101303 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 7:54 am

That's when we explain that what it SEEMS like is happening is not what's really happening. It's something else they haven't thought of before. Make it a teaching moment. Otherwise, we and they fall back to current society's tacit definition("real atheists don't sing carols or set foot in a church") and nothing much has changed.

Yes, yes, I know I said I wasn't going to say anymore on this topic. I lied, ok? ;-)

I just wanted to ask the people who are taking such pains to defend the carol-singing - are you really, truly, definitely sure you're not actually just post-rationalising your position? Actively wanting to find justifications for continuing doing something that you want to do anyway?

Feel free to consider it a rhetorical question - I'm not accusing, just raising the possibility. It is not unknown for humans to fix on the desired action first and create the good reasons for doing it afterwards - and I don't for one moment claim to have never done it myself.

Just a thought!