51. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158250 by ForestMist on April 10, 2008 at 8:56 am

ASMarques - rather than trying to compare the Holocaust with religion, why don't you actually answer one of the questions that have been put to you?

52. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158221 by ForestMist on April 10, 2008 at 8:24 am

ASMarques - why is it irrelevant that other groups were killed in the Holocaust? If the whole thing were a jewish conspiracy, then why on earth would they also include gypsys, gays, the mentally handicapped and others?
Also, can you explain to me why you felt necessary to define one of the historians you mentioned in a previous post as a "woman historian"? Why couldn't you just say "historian"?

53. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157781 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Ian - the bombing of Dresden did not help to bring an end to the conflict at all. The bombing of all the German civilian sites didn't change Hitler's mind one bit, it didn't halt the war or make it come to an early end. Things only came to an end when the Russians got to Berlin and it was obvious that there was no way out. The bombing of Dresden and Cologne and the other cities didn't make any difference.

54. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157751 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Well, I've discovered something of interest thanks to Mr Scumbag Man - my old primary school was built on a old POW camp site. Can't find anything about the blocks of flats that made up the married quarters being old SS and Gestapo offices though like my mum's always told me (used to live in Fallingbostel camp when I was little, not too far from Bergen-Belsen)

55. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157738 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm

ASMarques - I hadn't addressed what you think illuminates on what happened at Bergen-Belsen because I hadn't seen the link. Was I meant to be impressed by the site?? Of course, there is no point in asking that seeing as you have buggered off (not that I am complaining about that) because you know you are talking complete bollocks.

56. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157727 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm

al-rawandi - my bloke keeps on telling me that I am incredibly easy to wind up over some matters. I have to agree with him. I have to admit as well that I hadn't realised quite how appalling, and ineffectual, the Allied bombings were until I started reading a book on Albert Speer by Dan Van Der Vat (almost finished now) - fascinating read, would well recommend it (it's called "The Good Nazi - the life and lies of Albert Speer"

57. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157718 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:10 pm

In respect to the bombings of Germany during the war, the allies actually did very little long-term damage to the war effort in Germany - mainly thanks (if that is the right word) to some damned good planning by Albert Speer. A lot of the factories weren't bombed more than once, and Speer's organisation was so good that they were quite often producing goods again only a week later

58. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157716 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

al-rawandi - I think it is very wrong to say that every German shares responsibility for what happened under the Nazis. (Indeed, it was the bit in the Versailles Treaty that held every single german, no matter how old, as equally responsible for the 1st World War that helped Hitler get into power in the first place). People like Sophie Scholl did what they could against the Nazis, and she was executed for it - are you saying she shares responsibility for the Nazi's crimes despite doing all she could against them? Lots of germans who spoke out against the Nazis vanised into concentration camps - are they responsible for what happened? And they did not have the chance to stand up for what was right - how many elections do you think there were once Hitler was established in power? You had the SA roaming the streets beating up anyone who spoke against the Nazis until 1934, then you had the SS and the Gestapo. You had parents scared of saying anything in case their children repeated it back to their Hitler Youth leaders. It was not like the situation now in the US or the UK where people are free to speak out against the ruling parties without fear of reprisal, it was a different kettle of fish back then.

59. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157672 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 11:58 am

ASMarques - First off I would like to point out that while Jews made up the largest number of those who died in the Holocaust, don't forget about the other groups who were also sent to the Death & Concentration camps, including gypsys and gays. The Nazi regime also targetted the mentally handicapped. Have you ever read "Die Weisse Rose"? I have. It concerns The White Rose German resistance group, who included Sophie Scholl. They talk about meeting a nun who worked in a school for mentally handicapped children. One day the SS turn up and take about half the kids away and shoot them. The remaining kids ask the nuns what is going on and the nuns tell them that their friends have gone to meet Jesus. So of course when the SS come back for the rest of the kids, they go off with them hand in hand because they're going to meet Jesus. No doubt this is a lie as well?
And by the way, I have been to Bergen-Belsen. Are you really trying to tell me that everything I saw there was faked? And its in the middle of a bloody big forest - very easy to see how the local population didn't know what was going on there. And if the whole thing has been faked, why on earth would the Germans go on with the fake when it makes them look so bad?

60. Fleabytes

Comment #157449 by ForestMist on April 9, 2008 at 5:39 am

Quetzalcoatl - thank you for posting that link.

I'm another person who mainly lurks and only occasionally posts, but I've never thought that the people who post here are a joyless bunch. There have been some posts that have made me fume, some posts that have made me hit my head against the desk and some that have made me laugh out loud.

When RM posted that comment on the FOCS site, he would have known that someone from this site would have read it. I could very well be reading it wrongly, but it may be that he feels angry at this site and the people who post on it for not being the community he wished it to be, for not satisfying his need to fit in somewhere, and so the best way to get back at the site is to make such a posting on the FCOS site. Am highly likely wrong though.

61. Beware the Believers

Comment #155025 by ForestMist on April 4, 2008 at 4:50 am

Kardashovel -

Now you may think that it is no big deal to deliberately kill a "day old" embryo, much less a second-trimester fetus. I don't share that view. I think abortion is immoral and that has nothing specifically to do with what is "natural".

62. Fleabytes

Comment #154311 by ForestMist on April 3, 2008 at 5:08 am

mixmastergaz - many thanks for your response - the whole regular themed show thing has put my mind at ease, and in the context of your other ones (previous and planned) a themed programme of songs with atheistic lyrics fits in fine.
But the idea of promoting music by an artist/group just because they are atheist sits very uncomfortably with me. Liking or not liking a song is all to do with the song, and not what the person behind the song thinks about supernatural sky daddies. But quite a few people here have already said that, which is a good thing.

63. Fleabytes

Comment #154067 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm

epeeist - I worry about lots of things that I shouldn't worry about (including whether Dexter is bad because he is a serial killer or not bad because he only kills other serial killers; and whether or not it is normal to be continually aware in every dream that I have that it is a dream). But I don't worry about them enough to keep me from going to sleep! :)

64. Fleabytes

Comment #154058 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm

markg - maybe I am reading too much into it, but I still don't understand what difference it makes as to whether a musician is atheist or not. In some ways (as my bloke is arguing with me) there is nothing wrong (idealistically) with having an hours worth of music where the all lyrics are atheistic, but it is also then perfectly fine to have an hours worth of music on any day of the week where all the lyrics are religious. (although I still don't feel comfortable with either). But if the programme is just going to feature groups who are atheist regardless of the lyrical content, then that scares me to death.

65. Fleabytes

Comment #154052 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm

markg - I take it back, I do get why you posted the list - in response to mixmastergaz asking for music by atheists/agnostics. As I said, frazzled brain but that is a crap excuse really, so apologies.
However, I then don't get why mixmastergaz wanted to produce a show with music by just atheists and agnostics. I still just don't get it

66. Fleabytes

Comment #154047 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

markg - I just don't get why you posted the list though. It just came across to me as a bit "these artists are atheist, so its fine to listen to them". That may be miles away from what you were intending, but it's just the way it seemed to me. It felt a bit like when I was in the 6th form and my born-again christian friend told me that she was told not to read anything by Clive Barker because he was "bad" and that I would go to hell becuase I did read (and loved) his books. Surely music should be classed as music, not seperately as atheistic music and religious music and the same for books. You can divide them into good, bad, indifferent or whatever, but to divide music into atheist or agnostic or religious just feels to me to be both wrong and also potentially divisive.
Again, brain is slightly frazzled tonight, so please don't take anything I am saying as being nasty etc, as it is not meant that way at all.

67. Fleabytes

Comment #154030 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Erm, forgive me if I am reading this wrong (brain slighly frazzled after an hours discussion on what exactly lucid dreaming is), but I don't quite get the talk of atheist/agnostic musicians. I'm an atheist,but listening to Will Oldham's "idumea" on Current 93's "Black Ships ate the sky" sends shivers down my spine, and it is completely and utterly Christian. David Tibet is (some weird type) a Christian but some of the stuff that Current 93 has come out with is totally and utterly marvellous, and his religious lyrics don't detract at all from the marvellousness of the music. Will Oldham uses the word "god" a lot, but that doesn't mean that I as an atheist love his work any less. I think maybe (from some of his lyrics) that Jason Molina is christian, but I haven't heard anything of his that I haven't liked. I think the same could possibly be true of Elbow, but I stil love "audience with the pope". Low are Mormons but their "long way round" is one of my favourite christmas songs ever, and I love a lot of what they have done. Surfjan Stevens is christian and some of his stuff is completely amazing. And Plain Chant just goes straight to the very heart of me, and that is completely religious.
I just don't get why the list of atheist/agnostic musicians has even been posted, it could easily make theists who come to this site think that this is a list of people who it is ok to listen to and like because they don't believe in god.
I really hope that I have got this completely wrong...

68. Fleabytes

Comment #153800 by ForestMist on April 2, 2008 at 5:29 am

David - I have never called you a liar, I have not insulted you, I have not called you stupid. The only questions I have ever asked of anyone on here are the kinds of questions I would ask any of my friends. There are people on here who have called you a liar, but there are also others who have not. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that, as your comments above make it seem as if everyone on here is nasty.
I also don't like the bit about calling atheists fundamentalists. I don't believe in any gods or unicorns or kobolds, but if someone came along with evidence for any of them existing then fine, I would accept that they exist. I've changed my mind on liking Bon Jovi (I used to when I was younger, I now think they are rather crappy) so I'm quite happy to change my mind on other things as well (although I can't see anyone convincing me that clowns aren't scary). The point I am trying to make is to stop tarring everyone with the same brush, which it seems to me like you are doing. So some people on this site call you a liar and appear to dislike you. That is up to them, in the same way that it is up to you to refute these comments or not. But please don't try and make out that it is because they are atheists that they have these ideas about you, and that all atheists think the same way.
I am not making any judgement on whether you are or are not a liar as I have not been involved in any of those posts and therefore I do not feel I am in any position to comment on them.

69. Fleabytes

Comment #146850 by ForestMist on March 19, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Who else ya gonna call?

70. Fleabytes

Comment #146458 by ForestMist on March 19, 2008 at 5:37 am

Quetzalcoatl - I very much enjoyed reading your report and had a very nice cup of coffee in your honour

71. Fleabytes

Comment #146009 by ForestMist on March 18, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Any news on who Pathfinder is? I just spent 20 minutes telling the chap I live with how scary he was, then came on here, saw his post on banning Lady Chatterley's Lover (good book by the way) and realised that I am even stupider than I thought I was....
:)

72. Fleabytes

Comment #145785 by ForestMist on March 18, 2008 at 6:26 am

Pathfinder - apologies for my first sentence being incomprehensible. I will try again - if the Nazi scientists thought that the prisoners they were experiementing on were as deserving as respect as themselves (ie the scientists) and were as important as themselves (ie the scientists), then they (the scientists) would not have done the nasty experiments that they did. Any better?
And if I misread the Bible in such a way that I then think I have the right to kill all first born sons of anyone whose name is Thomas, then is that my fault or the fault of the Bible? According to you, it would be the fault of the Bible and I would be in the clear

73. Fleabytes

Comment #145772 by ForestMist on March 18, 2008 at 6:06 am

When I was in the 6th form, I went with a friend of mine who was a "born again Christian" to a big talk-thing that was being given by some American evangelist (at this point she was trying to save me from the evils atheism and of reading books by Clive Barker). One of the main things I remember (apart from feeling genuinely scared) was this american going on about how before he found god he was destined for an eternity in hell being tormented - nasty, nasty emotional blackmail. Still makes me feel all shuddery to think of it now.

74. Fleabytes

Comment #145760 by ForestMist on March 18, 2008 at 5:40 am

Im told Auscwitzz was all about failure to see other human's like oursellves but what about those injection'sof phenol into the heart, just to see what would happen? What about those experiment's on twin's, all carried out, as Churchill well said, in the light of a "preverted science"? Answer's please, dear Athiest's, but I sure as heckfire ain't holding my breath!

75. Fleabytes

Comment #145458 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Pathfinder - heretical nonsense? That is almost a compliment!
However - Auschwitz happened precisely because of a lack of respect for other. Mengele et al saw those they were experimenting on as being of less importance than they were, of not deserving of any respect, and therefore they saw it as perfectly acceptable to experiment on them. I visited Bergen-Belsen when I was 10 years old, I saw the mass graves where thousands of people were buried together, I saw the photographs taken when Bergen-Belsen was liberated. What happened there shows what happens when there is no respect for others, when some are seen as being of less importance than other.
Hellfire and torment do not that way lie at all. If you actually thought about it, you would realise that.

76. Fleabytes

Comment #145444 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Why do we need to replace religion with anything? I haven't believed in a god since I was 12 years old. In the 23 years since then I haven't gone around beating people up or nicking anything or breaking anything. I haven't needed a book to tell me to be nice to others. When it comes down to it, we're all made up of the same fundamental particles - you, me, fish, birds, stars, asteroids, cups of tea, even clowns. We're all part of this wondrous amazing universe, full of life and beauty and coldness and death, and not one of us is any more important that anyone or anything else - you're not more important than I am, I'm not more important than the owl that I just heard hooting outside. For me, realising this lack of difference between any of us means that you don't treat others as if they are more important or less important than you are - which means that you treat everyone and everything with respect. You don't need religion for that.

77. Fleabytes

Comment #145413 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 2:47 pm

And what is so scary about a churchyard at night when there is a full moon? There is a churchyard that I absolutely love to go and sit in at night - bats flying around, tawny owls hooting, barn owls flying past if you are very lucky, and a stunning view of the milky way (although the full moon doesn't really help with that one, to be honest)

78. Fleabytes

Comment #145410 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Pathfinder - no, you did not say that death was amusing. Neither do I. It is your "atheists are fascists" comment I would like you to apologise for. I take great exception to you commenting that all atheists are fascists because someone on this site posted a badly judged "joke" about David Robertson's demise.

79. Fleabytes

Comment #145384 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Pathfinder
I don't joke about anyone's demise - I used to work in an ITU and don't find death amusing in any way. I have a friend who is dying and don't find that amusing. I don't think that joking about death constitutes a reasoned argument. However, I think it ridiculous that you take someone's bad idea of a joke as proof that all atheists are fascists. In fact, I take it as a very nasty insult, and I would ask you to apologise for it.

80. Fleabytes

Comment #145370 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I suppose that atheists also invented the sword, the bow, the crossbow, the lance, the pike and the stone....

81. Fleabytes

Comment #145351 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 1:56 pm

I'm currently up to 1933 in Joachim Fest's biography of Hitler, and have come across no mention so far of atheism being behind any of his beliefs. I have also come across no mention of the NSDAP being anything to do with science, perverted or otherwise - from what I have read so far, National Socialism appears to be political. Have half the pages fallen out?

82. Fleabytes

Comment #145329 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 1:37 pm

The child in the womb is a human being and it is wrong to take human life - except in the most extreme of circumstances

83. Fleabytes

Comment #144981 by ForestMist on March 17, 2008 at 6:15 am

Steve - you mean Titania isn't real? And there was never a chap called Bottom with a donkey's head?

84. Fleabytes

Comment #143465 by ForestMist on March 14, 2008 at 6:17 am

Where do churches / theists get the thing about animals not having souls / going to heaven thing from? Am only wondering as us heathens at work topped our mini-chrissymas tree with an angel with a monkey-headed pen as the angel head. One of the catholic girls at work made murmurings about it being heretical, but the girl who is catholic through and through said she thought it was fine as animals go to heaven too, so why not have an angel with a monkey's head.

85. Fleabytes

Comment #143448 by ForestMist on March 14, 2008 at 5:51 am

Clearthinker - what are your reasons for saying abortion is wrong?

86. Fleabytes

Comment #142841 by ForestMist on March 13, 2008 at 6:14 am

Is there a position on tea and biscuits? The chap I live with maintains that it is completely wrong to drink a cup of tea without an accompanying biscuit? Should I support him in this matter by buying biscuits on my way home, or is it something I should try and wean him off?

87. Fleabytes

Comment #142817 by ForestMist on March 13, 2008 at 5:57 am

Quetzalcoatl - I do make tea for the other girls that I work with, does that work in my favour? But why would a deity such as you need money? :)

irate-atheist - as a child I used to drink hot blackcurrant squash, but have not done that for well over 20 years now - should I be concerned over this behaviour also?

88. Fleabytes

Comment #142789 by ForestMist on March 13, 2008 at 5:22 am

I'm feeling very concerned about my heretical thoughts and behaviour re preferring coffee to tea (and, indeed, not even liking tea). Quetzalcoatl - is there any penance I should be doing?

Where it comes to privately held beliefs, if they are truly privately held then we wouldn't know them and wouldn't be able to challenge them - so if when Incredulous, for example, is able to challenge someone over their beliefs doesn't that mean that they can't be privately held or else Incredulous (or whoever else's name you want to use) wouldn't know to challenge them in the first place.
Not sure if that makes sense, but it does in my head (kind of)

89. Fleabytes

Comment #142716 by ForestMist on March 13, 2008 at 3:40 am

epeeist - damn, is coffee a heresy? What is not even liking tea, let alone drinking it then?!
We have some mini-rolls in the office, but I was going to try and wait til lunchtime before waffling one of them - do they count as heretical?

90. Fleabytes

Comment #142702 by ForestMist on March 13, 2008 at 3:22 am

LorienRyan - I'm just being grumpy because I don't have any Lindor's here :(

91. Fleabytes

Comment #142671 by ForestMist on March 13, 2008 at 2:08 am

I know I am more of a "lurker" than a poster, but I have to say that I don't see a problem with asking a theist for evidence to prove what they are saying. I wouldn't expect that anyone would be convinced of the existence of the Easter Bunny from the photo that I took of a bunny at easter, they would quite rightly ask for much more evidence. So why should we be expected to take one book written well over a thousand years ago as the definite proof of the existence of god, especially when that book contradicts itself? That's just my thinking though

92. Fleabytes

Comment #142354 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 11:25 am

al-rawandi - glad to hear you weren't trying to kill the Easter Bunny! :) Although unless you live in the New Forest, I don't think you'd have to worry about that. For although I have proved Its existence by means of photographic and eye-witness evidence, I am unable to say for definite what supernatural abilities It may have - and depending on how far from the Forest you live, It may have needed some to get to your garden.

93. Fleabytes

Comment #142308 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 9:43 am

al-rawandi - as long as you didn't try to kill the Easter Bunny, that's ok (plus a bullet doesn't seem as cruel as trying to kill them by throwing eggs)

94. Fleabytes

Comment #142303 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 9:31 am

I saw Watership Down when I was 10 (around the same time I was taken to Bergen-Belsen), but seeing as all bunnies are cute and fluffy and nice, there must be another explanation for the ones in the film (and the book) being nasty - I think they must have been driven insane by mxy. I refuse to believe that bunnies aren't lovely and fluffy!

95. Fleabytes

Comment #142294 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 9:12 am

Quetzalcoatl - aren't all bunnies cute and fluffy and nice? (although admittedly, the ones with mxy don't look cute :( )

96. Fleabytes

Comment #142285 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 9:01 am

Quetzalcoatl - that can't have been the Easter Bunny, it doesn't do bad things like that - you can tell that from looking at its cute little bunny ears

97. Fleabytes

Comment #142277 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 8:49 am

Geoff - noooooo!! They kill bunnies with eggs!! What kind of sick nonsense is that??

LorienRyan - the joys of Lindor! :)

98. Fleabytes

Comment #142269 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 8:14 am

LorienRyan - you may indeed partake of the chocolate bunny as the Eucharist for the Risen Easter Bunny (I would recommend the Lindor ones - they're all pretty and golden as well as being yummy)

99. Fleabytes

Comment #142266 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 8:09 am

Quetzalcoatl - thank you for taking me at my word :) In all honesty, the photo really was taken at easter time - the only reason I took such a daft photo of a bunny half hidden in the undergrowth was because it was easter.
However, I am guessing that though you may accept that is an easter bunny, you are stil not accepting that it is The Easter Bunny...

100. Fleabytes

Comment #142259 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 7:53 am

Quetzalcoatl - the date the photo was taken comes up when I right-click it and select properties. Plus I quite clearly remember taking it at Easter. Can't you just take my word for it?

:)