751. 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

752. 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!

753. 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.

754. 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.

755. 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 :-)

756. 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.

757. 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.

758. 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 ...

759. 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 ...

760. 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.

761. 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!

762. 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.

763. 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.

764. 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?

765. 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.

766. 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.

767. 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.

768. 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.

769. 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!

770. 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!

771. 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.

772. 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!

773. 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?

774. 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 ...

775. 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 :-))

776. 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.

777. 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 ...

778. 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 ..."

779. 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.

780. 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 ;-)))

781. 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 :-)

782. 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.

783. 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?

784. 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 ;-)

785. 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?

786. 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? ;-)

787. '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.

788. 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?!?!

789. 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.

790. '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 ...

791. '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.

792. '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.

793. '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?

794. '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! :-)

795. '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.

796. '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.

797. '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 ...

798. '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.

799. '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.

800. '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.