51. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #187226 by Paula Kirby on June 1, 2008 at 2:30 pm

ChristiansTogether: Sorry Paula, I didn't communicate well - mea culpa. What I was wondering was if you could point me to a couple of folk (in Scotland) who would be prepared to participate in a debate (venue Inverness) with a chairperson of mutual acceptability.

LOL! "That's not my phone call you're describing." :-)

52. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #179576 by Paula Kirby on May 13, 2008 at 12:10 pm

bitsphere: One tiny critique though, the sofa should have been given to the guest interviewee rather than the interviewer. A known protocol

We were going to be the other way round, but the cameraman asked us to swop over because of where the camera was located. If we'd stayed as we were originally, the camera would have had a much better view of me than of Richard. Which wasn't really the object of the exercise! :-)

53. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178497 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Artful: So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then,

Who says there is one?

54. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178492 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Artful:
Evolution by Natural Selection DESCRIBES how complex life forms came about. It does not PRESCRIBE how best they should run their societies.

55. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178350 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 9:39 am

Just obscene.

I cannot begin to imagine how it must feel to think this kind of thing is remotely acceptable - let alone something to be proud of.

56. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178331 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 8:39 am

Epeeist: The thing that gets me is the dishonesty of much of the so called arguments that theists seem to put together.

Yes, I can relate to that. But do they REALISE they're being dishonest, do you think? Sometimes it's so blatant that they surely MUST be aware of what they're doing; but I think many Christians
aren't being knowingly dishonest at all.

I think what gets me even more than the dishonesty is the snideness. The almost audible sneers. And the smugness, too. Highland Christianity is not a pretty thing.

57. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178329 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 8:31 am

riandouglas: I'm curious as to whether that is not exactly how our "side" appears to the "opposition"?
I don't think it is, and I don't think I think that simply because I feel like I'm "one of us". Basically, is there some objective method of comparing arguments to show that one is tragically flawed?

Well, I think theists DO find us vicious and offensive; but I think that's less because we actually ARE vicious and offensive than because they find our disbelief offensive in itself.

As an example: last week I was rung up by the editor of the Christians Together website. As a follow-up to Richard's event in Inverness, he is hoping to arrange a formal debate between Christians and atheists later in the year, and he invited me to be one of the two atheist speakers.

It turned out that one of the two Christian speakers is going to be - guess who! - our very own Dial-A-Flea, David Robertson.

I responded that I had no interest in debating David Robertson, since I'd had numerous encounters with him via this website and had read his book, and found him to be an aggressive, abusive, dishonest debater.

I later received an email from the would-be debate organiser saying, "I understand what you are saying that you don't personally like one particular person's style, but if I can (gently) say, there are some who might not like the style of other panellists who might be involved.... "

I thought this was very revealing, because at that point the organiser had no idea at all who the atheist panellists were going to be, let alone what debating style they might adopt (I was still thinking about the invitation at that point, and subsequently declined it). So the organiser had no reason whatsoever to think that the atheist panellists might be offensive. The only possible source of offence at that stage, therefore, had to be the panellists' views, rather than their style of debate.

Contrast this with my David Robertson comment, which was specifically about HIM and his ACTUAL debating style; and not about his views at all.

58. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178312 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 7:00 am

scottishgeologist: "Free Church Continuing"

It's no good. I simply can't stop myself thinking "Continuity IRA" whenever I hear this term. Not that far off the mark, I suppose, since I also always think of the Free Church Continuing as being what you might call the paramilitary wing of the church.

59. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178294 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 5:28 am

njwong: Thanks Paula for a very interesting link.

I'm glad you enjoyed it! What interested me about it is the way the writer's prejudices have so clearly shaped his comments right from the very start. Now, don't get me wrong: we all view events through the filter of our own prejudices, I'm not denying that for a moment. But I think most fair, educated people are aware of that danger, and therefore go out of their way to make an honest attempt to achieve some kind of objectivity.

Not Donald Boyd, however. From his opening sentence ("The archbishop was in town and his disciples came to meet him.") he's in classic Abuse-for-Jesus territory.

The oh-so-tedious religious terminology is thrown around generously - "followers", "evangelising" - presumably these writers still think this is witty and original.

According to Boyd, I am not a "local atheist", but a "local atheist activist", which intrigued me rather, since it's not a term that I use to describe myself, and UHI didn't introduce me that way either. I can't help feeling he's added the word "activist" for its somewhat pejorative overtones, rather than out of any desire for accuracy.

Then we have the downright misrepresentations: "Like a skilled evangelist, Richard Dawkins made his dogmatic assertions with boldness. Possibly he hoped that no-one would notice the difference between assertion and fact; like the speaker's marginal note 'argument weak, shout loudly'" Now, the video of the event is available on this site and elsewhere, and we've all heard Richard speak in other videos too - have you ever heard him use the "shout loudly" technique? I suppose we should be grateful for the acknowledgement that "skilled evangelists" make dogmatic assertions and for the implied criticism of that.

The next quote particularly reveals his bias: "What surprised me was the number of childish titters at what were thought to be good points." Audience laughter becomes "childish titters". "Childish", presumably, because Donald Boyd didn't like it.

I could go on and on, but it's a long review, so I'll stop with just one more quote: "One questioner could understand apes evolving into humans but not bacteria into humans. This gave Dawkins an opportunity to demonstrate the fertility of his imagination as he mimed some of the evolutionary process."

What Boyd is describing here was actually one of the most impressive parts of the event - actually, one of the most impressive things I've ever seen Richard do: condense 4 billion years of evolution into about 3 minutes! It prompted an utterly spontaneous outburst of applause, and a number of people have commented on it to me since. Boyd rejects evolution, and therefore is content to dismiss the products of science and learning with the claim that they're all down to the "fertility of the imagination". Not based on his study of evolution, you understand - but simply on his faith.

Was this a man who listened to Dawkins' arguments with an open mind and attempted a fair and balanced portrayal of the event? I think not.

60. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178256 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 3:21 am

stereoroid: Honestly, I don't care whether it's a church, or a state regime, or a cult, or whatever, regardless of what they believe or not. Any time people are lied to, coerced, prevented from constructive free expression, or indoctrinated from a young age, I want it to stop. If we get that cleared up, the rest is details...

Well said, Stereoroid. I think that should become the RD.net motto.

61. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178247 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:27 am

Just in case anyone's interested in a completely DIFFERENT take on this event, this is the review posted on www.christianstogether.net:

http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=112791

Written by the man who, during the Q&A session, tried to claim the book of Daniel as an example of fulfilled prophesy and, consequently, proof of God's existence, it is, as you might expect, not altogether positive ;-)

62. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178244 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:10 am

Ichneumonid: no wonder David Robertson has been so keen to portray himself as the fearless slayer of atheists on this site and elsewhere - his own constituency seems to be deserting him!

This article is specifically about the Church of Scotland, and David Robertson is with the Free Church of Scotland. Confusing, I know. Then there's the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), the Free Presbyterians, and a myriad others - none of which would exist as separate entities, of course, if they had been able to resolve their disagreements in the past! So the very existence of all these many, many churches is a nice illustration of their inability to resolve conflict - the very issue being highlighted by this article.

But even though the article isn't about the Free Church of Scotland, the issues raised will apply there too. The FCoS has traditionally been a very strict, stern, fundamentalist church - but there are signs of a more liberal faction trying to exert influence now. (Believe it or not, David Robertson is one of them.) I think there can be no doubt that there will be tears before bedtime there too.

63. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178240 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:00 am

What an interesting article.

There's a lot here, though, that has always been happening. Church ministers have always been in a rather difficult position: adored by parts of their congregations, loathed by others. And any minister who tries to introduce changes of any kind whatsoever has always been asking for trouble.

Check out any church, and the biggest disputes are not about matters of doctrine (although up here in the north of Scotland the issue of bible literalism is pretty fundamental), but about whether to replace the pews with chairs; whether to change the style of music used in services; whether to use a more modern form of liturgy (they CLAIM that the objections are doctrinal, but they're not really: they're just about resistance to change); even whether to move the church outing or church fete from its regular spot on the second Saturday in July, or whatever.

One of the things we rarely discuss when debating people's reasons for continuing to believe in God and go to church is the sheer, soothing familiarity of the routine - and yet I think it's actually a very important factor. Anything that is predictable and has a particular, dependable pattern can be rather hypnotic, comforting, reassuring. No surprises. No jolts. Nice and safe. And let's not forget that, in the UK, at least, congregations consist overwhelmingly of older people, who have a tendency to be even more resistant to change than the rest of us. So a new minister; or an old minister who's read a new book; or a new style of service; a new hymn book; a new style of music; chairs arranged in a new formation; coffee served before rather than after the service - almost anything can trigger huge resentment.

I think many people are change-resistant anyway; but it all gets far more heated in churches, because there's the accelerant of people believing that THEIR way is God's way. (Or perhaps they don't really believe this - perhaps it's just a means of adding weight to their own wishes.) The question of, say, a new hymn book rapidly escalates into "But God finds this modern rubbish offensive" vs "God needs us to move with the times." When people start acting as though they're speaking for God, a certain amount of intransigence is inevitable.

Add to this the fact that congregations are small, pretty intense communities, and that small, intense communities are nearly always prone to in-fighting and bitchiness, and the recipe for conflict is complete.

Towards the end of my time as a Christian one of the many things that troubled me was the recognition that churches are home to far more petty squabbles than the outside world, and far more spitefulness and downright nastiness too.

The professional mediators are going to have a hell of a job on their hands! Wouldn't it be fun to watch ;-)

64. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177759 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 4:03 pm

CJ22: The idea that secular society is engagesd in silencing the church(es) is ridiculous. They're free to start their own TV channel if they wish to - it's not like they don't have enough money.

I don't want to take this thread off-topic, but it's interesting that you should mention the money, CJ. Just today in the NSS's weekly newsletter there was a very interesting mini-article about the Church of England's investments:

Credit crunch? Not for us, says CofE â€" we've got money coming out of our ears â€" so we'd better put in for another grant from the taxpayer
The Church commissioners â€" the trustees who manage the assets of the Church of England â€" this week published news of record profits from investments for 2007. The 33-strong board announced overall returns of 9.4 per cent on their investments last year and a 9.5 per cent total return on invested funds over the past 10 years.

The commissioners will report that the value of assets under their management has grown to £5.67 billion and that their fund, which is a closed fund accepting no new investment, has been able to return £37 million more each year to the Church over the past decade than it would have done if it had performed at the industry average.

Reporting this news, the Daily Telegraph said "Congregations should not start planning for new roofs and church halls, however, as the commissioners say that their funds contribute just 17 per cent of the total running costs of the Church of England â€" the balance being made up from the pockets of congregants and Diocesan investments."

Oh, (the reporter and the commissioners forgot to mention) and hundreds of millions from the taxpayer.

Despite having this fantastic stash (and that is only a small proportion of its total wealth, which is tied up in property, such as shopping centres and farmland) the Church of England continues to sting the taxpayer for church repairs, gigantic tax concessions, grants from statutory bodies, subsidising of its 'chaplaincies' in hospitals, prisons and the armed forces, and hundreds of millions ploughed into church-run schools.

However, despite all this, the Church continues to plead poverty, whingeing about a growing pension bill for retired clergy. It is also agitating to be exempted from paying water bills (a change in the way this is levied means that suddenly the church has to pay its way like everyone else.) Yesterday representatives of the Church of England, Methodist and other churches met officials from Ofwat, the industry regulator, to argue that they shouldn't have to pay for the water they use in the same way that everyone else does. After all, they've only got £6 billion in the bank.

You could almost feel sorry for them, couldn't you? OK, perhaps not.

65. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177754 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Fides: The five minutes that faith gets in a 3 hour current affairs programme caters to a large proportion of the nation. I guess that's why it's there

Large proportions of the nation enjoy gardening. DIY. Cookery. Pets. Sudoku. Shopping. Going to the gym. Do any of these interest areas get a ring-fenced, protected, unchallenged slot in the flagship national news broadcast every single day? I think not. It is religion, and ONLY religion, that is granted such a privilege. And then it has the sheer affrontery to claim that it is being excluded from public life.

66. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177752 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Fides: Paula, it's like trying to nail jelly to a wall. Will you address the points I've made or continue your avoidance? Was i correct when I posted;

blah blah

I've already explained why this is NOT correct in the context we are discussing.

Fides, I had you down as one of the more sensible of the theists who post on this site. My apologies. I was obviously confusing you with someone else.

67. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177744 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Fides: So Paula, when you said 'Richard Dawkins was not given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity', what you meant to say was 'Richard Dawkins was given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity', because of course this is where the evidence leads us.

No, you are confusing ACHIEVING a public forum with BEING GIVEN a public forum. Day after day, week after week, religion is GIVEN free access to our airwaves. Unchallenged. Richard Dawkins, by dint of years of hard work acquiring a reputation as an advocate of science and reason, ACHIEVED the opportunity to create a single series challenging religion's place in society. I realise you are in obtuse mode this evening, but perhaps even you can see the imbalance here.

There has been a campaign for many years now to get Thought for the Day removed from the Today programme. It has no place there: the Today programme is a NEWS programme, for goodness' sake. Yet every single day a religious speaker gets a slot in which s/he makes claims that are utterly unsubstantiated, and S/HE IS NEVER CHALLENGED ON THEM. Never. And, despite a vociferous and continued campaign to get rid of it, the BBC clings to it determinedly. There is absolutely no other topic that is accorded such a privilege.

Of course, there's a lot more than 3 programmes worth of evidence as I mentioned. I suppose it's as inconvenient to include these in your equation as it was to exclude the word 'not' from your previous sentence.

You were specifically talking about Richard Dawkins' exposure in the British media opposing religion. So what other programmes do you think he's made on this subject? And how do they even begin to balance the DAILY religious broadcasts that have been going on for decades?

Incidentally, what's RD's evidence for his views on Mendel?

I don't know, Fides. The point is, if he were to make that claim on the Today programme, John Humphrys would leap down his throat and demand that he substantiate it. Unlike the Cardinal, whose lecture included claim after claim about God, but who wasn't challenged to provide a single iota of evidence. This is the whole point.

68. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177728 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Fides et Ratio: Where is this world where the national media fail to criticise religious figures? HELLO, THERE'S A LINK ON THIS SITE TO A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER CRITICISING THE CARDINAL AND HIS LECTURE. In what seriousness can you possibly make the point that, on the one hand he is not criticised because he is a Cardinal, and on the same site have a link to a Guardian article that criticises him? Is this reason? By the way, this is not addressed to any specific follower but to all Dawkins' disciples who share Paula's view.

Sigh. We are talking about the interview on the BBC Today programme this morning. Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL? Why was he given at least twice the length of time to put his views across as Richard was to oppose them? Why was he given the prime 8.10 a.m. slot? Why didn't John Humphrys ask him how on earth he can possibly know any of this stuff, when we all know perfectly well that, had it been a politician advocating Plan A over Plan B, Humphrys would have started arguing with him before he'd got his first sentence out?

"Hitler and Stalin"? "Dawkins' disciples"? Are you planning to wheel all the tired old clichés out tonight, Fides?

69. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177720 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Fides et Ratio: What about 'The Root of All Evil' or even the countless invitations to discuss the subject on TV, the wireless, and in the print?

What about them? What is a single series of, what, 3 programmes arguing against religion, compared with year after year of the daily service on BBC radio, Songs of Praise on BBC TV, Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4, Prayer for the Day on BBC Radio 4, and an equivalent slot on BBC Radio 2? Every single day religion is given an uncritical airing by our national, taxpayer-funded broadcaster. Religion is anything but excluded from national debate.

Belief exists, it works, many share it, the Cardinal is a spokesman for a large number of believers. The evidence for his thoughts is well substantiated in the text with references to St. Paul, TS Eliot, de Lubac, Pope Benedict and stoic philosophy.

Ah yes, as I thought. You seem to be having some trouble with the word "evidence".

Incidentally, on the subject of evidence, is it right that Dawkins has claimed that Mendel was a priest because it enabled him to study biology?

Are you telling us you haven't read The God Delusion, Fides? Yes, this is offered as a suggested explanation in chapter 3. It's a nice example of what we're talking about, actually, in that you've never heard Richard invited to discuss this opinion on national radio. Why not? Because it's clearly just opinion. When a Cardinal spouts his opinion, however, it's given the prime 8.10 a.m. slot normally reserved for leading politicians.

Remember what we're talking about here: NOT the right to hold opinions, NOT the right to express them, NOT the right for them to be heard; but simply why it is that religious opinion is allowed to pass unchallenged in our media (specifically the BBC in this case), whereas every other kind of opinion is either ignored or subject to rigorous challenge.

As for your point about the Cardinal being the representative of many people who believe - so what? Who cares? There are many people who are racist, but what are the chances of the leader of the BNP (translation for non-British readers: British National Party - the most right-wing part we have) being given the prime slot on the BBC Today programme and not being challenged on his claims? None whatsoever, I'm happy to say.

70. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177696 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Fides et Ratio: Paula. We've both read the lecture. Can we agree that it is a response to Richard Dawkins et al? If so, as representative of the largest group of practising Christians in this country, shouldn't he be given a public forum to respond to the man who was given a public forum to criticise his beliefs?

Richard Dawkins was not given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity. He wrote a book which clearly resonated with very many people and consequently sold well and has had influence. This is market forces at work. There was no free pass involved. Had his book not found a market, no one would be remotely interested in his views on the topic.

Richard's point this morning (and mine this evening) was, in any case, not that the Cardinal should not be heard, but that, having been heard, he should be subjected to the same kind of challenge that anyone other than a religious speaker would be subjected to. No one else would be permitted to make the kind of assertions that the Cardinal makes in his speech without being asked to provide the evidence for the assertions. Yet the Cardinal makes statement after statement about the nature of God, the alleged truth of God's existence, the alleged need of humans for God, the dire consequences for humans of not believing in God - and no one (except Richard!) stands up publicly and says: "Whoa. How do you KNOW? What are you basing this stuff on? Where's your EVIDENCE? Why should we take any notice of you at all? Aren't you just indulging in wishful thinking here?"

No one is saying that the religious should be banned from the debate. Just that the playing field should be level and that religious claims should be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as any other type of claim. It's really very hard to understand why you should have a problem with this, unless, of course, you share my doubt that religious claims would be able to stand up to the challenge.

71. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177680 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Fides et Ratio: Hello Northern Bright, I thought you'd retired from the forum.

No. Just using my real name these days.

You seem to be suggesting that only Richard's view should be covered in the national media, and not the response of those he attacks. If this is your stance or an accurate portrayal of RD's stance, I think it adds more substance to the Cardinal's idea of how athiesm can lead to Hitler/Stalin figures. Those who will brook no debate. Not only do you not agree with what he says (fair enough), but you profoundly disagree with his right to say it.

I seem to be suggesting nothing of the sort. You asked for clarification of what Richard was objecting to. I gave it. He was objecting to the fact that theologians are not required to substantiate their claims, whereas everyone else is.

Like everyone else, the Cardinal is entitled to his opinion, and he is entitled to express his opinion. UNLIKE everyone else, however, his opinion gets taken seriously by the national media, despite the fact that he has nothing whatsoever with which to back it up.

Drawing attention to this glaring inequality in the ways in which religious and non-religious claims are treated by the media is in no way a precursor to a re-run of the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, and you know it. Shame on you.

72. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177660 by Paula Kirby on May 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Fides et Ratio: Is Dawkins saying that the Cardinal's views are treated deferentially because of his faith, in which case is he unaware of the criticism his views on, for example, family life and abortion receive in the media. Or is he criticising the fact that his views are given coverage solely on the basis of his position as a man of faith?

Have you read the full text of the Cardinal's lecture, Fides? It is full of unsubstantiated declarations - statements for which there is no foundation whatsoever, other than that they're what the Cardinal has been taught to believe.

Richard's point is that there is literally no other field of human endeavour in which statements made in the total lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever would ever be taken seriously. Yet the Cardinal can pontificate to his heart's content at Westminster Cathedral, with not a shred of evidence to support his views, and be taken seriously enough to be featured pretty prominently on a national news programme the next morning.

Religion is given a free pass. And it shouldn't be. It should be treated the same as every other field of human enquiry and be required to demonstrate the truth of its claims before being given a place in public discourse.

73. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171223 by Paula Kirby on April 28, 2008 at 11:25 am

DickDawkins: What I don't get is why atheists don't admit that atheism is a religion. You guys have your messiah(Dick Dawkins) and your holy book (God Delusion and sequels). Smells like religion to me especially since you guys think he's infallible and are willing to suck his schlong.

Aaaaah, isn't he sweet? Who could fail to respond to the transforming power of Jesus's love when we see how wonderful its effects have been on this dick. Sorry, I mean Dick.

74. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170882 by Paula Kirby on April 28, 2008 at 5:50 am

Melissa:

We are born sinners.

How do you know?
What does it even mean?

Sin entered the world through the deception of Satan to Adam and Eve.

How do you know?
How do you know that Satan exists?
How do you know that Adam and Eve existed?

You presumably wouldn't dream of taking at face value something written in, say, Aesop's Fables. You wouldn't, for instance, truly believe that the sun and the north wind ever really had a competition to see who could make a man take his coat off first, would you? Not simply on the basis that it was written down in an old book, anyway. You'd need independent corroboration of it.

And even though you would doubtless find plenty of examples in real life that mirrored the moral of the sun/north wind story in Aesop's Fables, you still wouldn't see those examples as evidence that the story itself actually happened as described in the book. There's really no reason to treat the bible any differently in this respect.

It's not surprising if parts of the Adam and Eve story "make sense" to you and appear to be reflected in the way humans interact with each other - that doesn't point to its being literally true as told. After all, if the Adam & Eve story emerged the way I believe it emerged - through one group of Bronze Age humans trying to make sense of the world being a frightening place to live, of the fact that we all die, and of the fact that life can be very hard - then the story is by definition rooted in a human understanding of the world, and so it is no wonder if you read it now and relate to it.

This does not make it true, any more than the fact that most of us can relate to a good love story means that Romeo and Juliet must be true.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169918 by Paula Kirby on April 27, 2008 at 4:50 am

riandouglas: Being new to posting, and likely to be going back to hiding after today,

Oh no, please don't do that. Your posts have been great. Why leave us now?

76. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169883 by Paula Kirby on April 27, 2008 at 3:30 am

4837. Comment #169831 by Styrer- on April 26, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Sorry, Styrer, I think you're getting a bit carried away here. I don't think Melissa has written anything to merit that response. Of course her views strike us as ignorant and, in the case of her attempted justification for acts of gross divine barbarity, repugnant. But there are many, many, many Christians out there whose beliefs are based on precisely this kind of woolly, emotional, ill-defined, illogical, ill-thought-through approach. They need to be argued with too, and where better for that to happen than on RD.net? Why should we want to drive such a person away?

Melissa seems to be a new arrival on this site. She's not being abusive, she's not trolling (unlike so many of her Christian predecessors in here) - she's trying to explain why she feels that her belief in her god is justified. And the guys in here are making an excellent job of pointing out how internally inconsistent and unsubstantiated that belief is.

The arguments are so old and familiar to us, I suppose it's natural for us to react with irritation sometimes; but there are an awful lot of people out there who simply haven't heard them. At least Melissa's put herself in a position where she now WILL hear them and, for as long as she is willing to engage in real discussion, I don't see why we should have a problem with that.

77. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169875 by Paula Kirby on April 27, 2008 at 2:52 am

I am a Christian. I have been since I was five years old. I was not brain-washed.

Isn't it part of the definition of successful brainwashing that its victim not aware of the fact?

78. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169873 by Paula Kirby on April 27, 2008 at 2:48 am

Mesomodel: In case anyone had any doubts about txpiper:

http://www.christianinformant.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1412;sa=showPosts

Oh dear. Can anyone (preferably someone reasonably SANE) please tell me why so many people are so completely obsessed with all this End Times stuff? Why has it taken hold of so many people's brains (or what passes for them)? Even in my Christian days I could never see the book of Revelation as anything more than the disturbed outpourings of a disturbed and quite probably drugged mind.

79. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169550 by Paula Kirby on April 26, 2008 at 9:21 am

MPhil: Ah, someone from "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue" evidentally

Humphrey Lyttelton himself, no less. A fabulous musician and an outrageously funny man. A real one-off.

80. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169543 by Paula Kirby on April 26, 2008 at 9:10 am

Steve Zara: As this thread has become the new "Fleabytes", I think this is the appropriate place..

A true legend has just died. And, in his memory, I say:

Oxford circus....

At the risk of alienating every non-British, non-Radio-4-listening person on this website - what's going to become of Samantha now? And Mrs Trellis of North Wales? And I shall miss him too. Though possibly for different reasons.

81. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169399 by Paula Kirby on April 26, 2008 at 1:40 am

TheTruthID: What does Hawking say of the Universe having a beginning?

You'll find the answer in the Fleabytes article elsewhere on this website. Here's the relevant section for you:

Robertson dwells on the subject of the sheer improbability of life having arisen in the universe �quot; indeed, of the universe being suitable for life at all. But as with the list of religious scientists, I again got the impression that this was designed to create the impression that Dawkins had tried to dodge this issue in TGD �quot; which, of course, he hadn't. This suspicion of devious behaviour on Robertson's part is in no way reduced by his quotation from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, on the following page: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Wow. What a compelling quote. If even Stephen Hawking thinks the universe is evidence of a creator God, then who are we �quot; who, even, is Richard Dawkins �quot; to demur? Surely this clinches the argument for anyone with any sense, or any humility, at all? But wait. What's this? Familiar as I am with the way David Robertson twists words and distorts meaning on this website, I couldn't feel entirely confident that Hawking had been faithfully represented here so tracked down the quote in A Brief History of Time for myself. It's certainly there, as quoted. However, it's followed by a lengthy argument to the effect that the universe didn't, in fact, begin in the "just this way" referred to in the quote, and that he believes a "no boundary" model to be more accurate �quot; i.e. that the universe had no beginning at all. In fact, Hawking's whole chapter culminates in the words: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained [as he himself has just argued], having no boundary or no edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

82. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #167431 by Paula Kirby on April 24, 2008 at 3:17 am

DLed: the last questioners are awful. The state of education and Weltanschauung is frightening
"why does the embryo gets zeroed" and the last "question" ... no comments

I agree about the question about the age of embryos. That was really very odd indeed, I thought. And I groaned with everyone else at the last question, which was basically just "What do you have to say to someone who has spent the last 50 years walking with Jesus and who KNOWS he isn't a delusion?" But I have some sympathy with the questioner. After all, what else does he have other than his feelings? He can't challenge Richard on the basis of facts or science or reason or evidence. All he has is his inner conviction. To him it's valid and it's overwhelming.

It seems strange to many of us, but this is all Christians have - so it's not really that surprising if they offer it up as some kind of challenge.

Inner feelings are not a reliable guide to external reality - when we've finally got that message across, we'll be well on our way to winning the battle, it seems to me.

83. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167424 by Paula Kirby on April 24, 2008 at 3:03 am

Steve Zara: Not entirely sure now. Just seemed like a vaguely good idea at the time. Perhaps just somewhere where ideas can be discussed along with strategies for dealing with creationists and creationism, and promoting reason, without us being constantly trolled and feeling the need to pounce.

I like the idea too and would vey much like to be part of it. The posts of the Remnants and Truth IDs of this world become incredibly tedious and end up hijacking so many otherwise interesting threads ... but I wouldn't like to do anything that diluted the impact of this website. It would be rather tragic and self-defeating if we moved all the really interesting discussions away from RichardDawkins.net itself.

So I'd prefer to see an area within this website for Real Atheists Only. Though how that would be managed, I really don't know. Perhaps one of the people who have said they might be willing to host such a blog elsewhere might be prepared to volunteer to manage it as a sub-section of RD.net? - issuing user ids and passwords to people who want to be part of it, policing it to exclude trolls who get in under false pretences etc? I can't think of any other way of doing it without either detracting from RD.net as a whole, or asking even more of Josh than we all do already.

84. Flea of the week

Comment #164094 by Paula Kirby on April 19, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Lionel A: I have been doing just that for some months but somebody keeps moving it back.

Well, I suppose the bright side of that is that no one would ever think of looking for a book by Alister McGrath in the Popular Science section, so it's probably less likely to sell there than in its rightful place with the other religious books. And really, it's such a very, VERY bad book that I wouldn't wish anyone to waste their money on it.

85. Flea of the week

Comment #163928 by Paula Kirby on April 19, 2008 at 9:46 am

Lionel A: A sole copy of McGrath's, 'The Dawkins Delusion' has been on the popular science shelf; irritatingly it should be in with religion, for some months now. How do I know this? It is because one of my special bookmarks is still in it.

Yes, that IS irritating. Why don't you move it to its proper place next time you're in? And no, I don't mean the rubbish bin. Though now I come to think of it ...

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163779 by Paula Kirby on April 19, 2008 at 2:51 am

Steve Zara: You know what puzzles me? If we came from the sea... why are there still fish?

And if we came from dust, why do I still have to go round with a bloody vacuum cleaner twice a week?

87. Flea of the week

Comment #163763 by Paula Kirby on April 19, 2008 at 2:14 am

If you make me groan again like that, I'll troll your sorry behind.

Er, I think what Styrer meant was "Welcome to RD.net, ilchymis" ! :-)

88. Flea of the week

Comment #163610 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Adam Morrison: Maybe some people will take up the cause for you for a while.

Oh dear, I think maybe my original post may have come over as more self-pitying than I intended!

My main point, really, was that, on the basis of what I've seen so far, I suspect that NONE of these books is going to be worth reading, whether by me or anyone else. Obviously, if anyone is particularly interested to read them, that's a different matter altogether. But I suspect some of us feel obliged to read at least some of them, simply in the interests of open-minded investigation and just in case one of them actually does contain something new; and my conclusion is that this is giving them too much benefit of the doubt, and we ALL probably have better things to do with our time.

We often make the analogy here of astronomy vs astrology. How many of us feel obliged to read every new book on astrology that hits the book shops, just on the off-chance that it contains something that's going to change our mind?

As I said, I wouldn't dream of discouraging anyone who genuinely wants to read these books. I just don't think it's worth reading them out of any sense of duty or obligation. My impression is that most of us know the arguments Christians use pretty well already. The day they come up with a new, more convincing one, we'll hear about it, I'm quite sure.

89. Flea of the week

Comment #163580 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Big John: If we were to chip in to send this woman anywhere, I think we need to send her to TAM6 so I can meet her and shake her hand and sympathize with her in person for the dirty, filthy, job she has assumed.

Well, that's very sweet of you, Big John, but I quite liked the sound of Hawaii. Couldn't you shake my hand there instead? ;-)

90. Flea of the week

Comment #163562 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Diacanu: I think we need to chip in, and send her to Hawaii for a week or so to properly heal from that ordeal.

Know what, Diacanu? You always talk a lot of sense. ;-)

91. Flea of the week

Comment #163527 by Paula Kirby on April 18, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Geoff: Paula, you busy...?

YES. VERY. ;-)

Seriously - I've read 4 of these flea books in some detail and have never in my life been so heartily glad to come to the end of a book. Or 4 books, in this case.

It was in all sincerity a deeply depressing experience. And no (before our resident Christians start chipping in here), NOT because, as an atheist, I'm not prepared to listen to the counter-arguments: I wouldn't have picked up the books in the first place if that were the case. No, they were depressing because they were all so terribly badly argued. 2 of them (Cornwell's and McGrath's) weren't argued at all, in fact, and the other 2 just came out with the same old same-old - incredibly trite, mind-numbing stuff.

I was depressed by their incredibly negative, warped view of humanity. By their resolute rejection of anything resembling objective enquiry. By their willingness to let their feelings determine their understanding of reality. To let wishful thinking determine their conclusions. By their smugness. By their arrogance (it doesn't seem to cross the minds of any of them that, even if there WERE a god, the chances of it being theirs would be ridiculously slim). By their shameless passing-off of feelings and opinions and hearsay as fact. By their reliance on biblical texts which, let's face it, are just as unreliable as any other written document. You only need to take a look at the newspapers on sale today, right now, to see how very inconsistent are their portrayals and interpretations of events. You wouldn't wager your next month's salary - let alone your whole life - on any one of them being definitely accurate, would you? Yet these Fleas are all content to base their whole lives on the accuracy of texts that are not only thousands of years old (and therefore AT BEST can only represent the best of human understanding at that time), but are full of stuff that is so patently nonsensical that anyone with even a modicum of common sense and/or learning should really be able to dismiss it in an instant. If you're determined to base your life on an ancient book, might I recommend Aesop's Fables instead? They contain a lot more wisdom, a lot less gratuitous violence and a hell of a lot less nonsense than anything the Bible can offer. Though why anyone should favour "ancient wisdom" over modern knowledge, is beyond me.

The other thing that was depressing about them was their pervading mean-spiritedness. Their small-mindedness. Their inability or unwillingness to recognise us for what we are: an animal like every other, with no special place in the universe (other than that conferred upon us by evolution, namely our - so far as we know - unique capacity to reason. And how ironic it is that the ONE thing that really MIGHT make us special in the universe is the ONE thing that the religious want to guard against and subdue with every fibre in their bodies.) Yet, despite our humble position in the universe, able to love and care and empathise and take joy in our existence.

Reading those four books was like having a huge weight pressing down on me. Really - I'm not exaggerating. I had to come up for air between them, and read (or re-read, in some cases) Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens - and the difference in atmosphere in these books was absolutely staggering: the sheer relief of finding a genuine spirit of truth-seeking, of realism, of humanity, of generosity combined with realism, of sheer, downright intelligence and reason. The contrast was actually quite shocking.

If I'd only read one of the flea books, I might have been persuaded that I'd just struck unlucky and that others might be better. But I read four, and they were all dismally bad. There wasn't a new argument in any one of them. Nothing that didn't amount to a re-statement of everything most of us have heard Christians come out with time and time again. The biggest difference between them was the amount of vitriol and venom they spewed along the way - and boy, do these followers of the Prince of Peace do a good line in vitriol and and venom. Richard has been accused of aggression in TGD - but his aggression, such as it is, is at least open and honest, not snide and picky and malicious.

So no, Geoff (and yes, I know your question wasn't intended seriously) - NOTHING would induce me to waste another moment of my life on these apologies for apologists. How many stinging nettles are you going to pick with your bare hands before you just accept the fact that they ALL sting? How many casserole dishes are you going to take out of the hot oven without using oven gloves before you conclude that it's NEVER a good idea? Life is simply too short to go on and on and on reading bad arguments for a bad idea. There are far, FAR more interesting, relevant, constructive and MEANINGFUL things to do with our time.

92. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162888 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Podaar: You meant cabbage patch, yes? Please tell me Gran wasn't wrong!

Well, you may have been found in a cabbage patch. I was definitely found under a gooseberry bush. But that might be another thing that's different depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on.

93. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162877 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Fabulous! It's about time someone took the mickey out of these idiots.

Stork theory, indeed. Everyone KNOWS babies are found under gooseberry bushes.

94. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162608 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 6:09 am

Sargeist: These days I like to imagine how I would answer my niece if she were to ask me a question:

So, easy one:
"Uncle Mark, is the earth flat?" "No."

But:
"Uncle Mark, is there a god?" "Er..., um... well, a lot of people think there is, but I don't, but I wouldn't like to tell you that there isn't, er.., um ..., bluster"

On the other hand, to an adult I am quite happy to say: "You know, it's all bollocks really, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

You're right about the importance of not indoctrinating in either direction. How about, "No one can know for sure, sweet heart. That's something you'll have to make up your own mind about when you're older"? Though I'd also feel comfortable with, "Well, I don't think so, but that's something you'll have to make up your own mind about when you're older".

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162603 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 5:59 am

Richard Morgan has also done another post.

Honestly, Quetz, I think he's best ignored. Anyone who's really interested can follow his posts on the Free Church forum - we all know where it is, or could google it if not. He'll be absolutely loving all the attention he's getting, and I'm quite sure that's a major factor in his behaviour. Let's not feed it, eh? It's not as if there aren't more interesting things to talk about.

96. Fleabytes

Comment #162581 by Paula Kirby on April 17, 2008 at 5:03 am

Geoff: Kinda changing the subject, but still on-topic in the sense of theists twisting things to suit their delusions

To be fair, it's not just theists who do this, is it? My hairdresser told me last visit that she'd started work later than usual one day recently and, as a result, had driven along a particular stretch of road too late to have been involved in a major car accident which, had she been travelling at her normal time, she may well have been caught up in in some way. "I believe these things happen for a reason", she told me. She's not religious, so far as I can make out - she just, like so many of us, finds it easier to see purpose and plan, rather than coincidence and chance, in the things that happen to her (or don't happen to her, as in this case!)

On one level I think I can understand it; though on another, it still amazes me that humans should be so quick to think that the universe (to put it at its least religious) should have a plan for them, a plan that is so precise and specific that it extends to arranging for us to start work later than usual on a day of a major accident.

This desire for cosmic significance seems almost universal, and NOT just linked to religion. I would suggest that it's our inability to comprehend our utter insignificance in cosmic terms that fuels religion, rather than the other way round. Religion simply creates a framework within which a Greater Power can order the apparently (and genuinely!) unordered events of our lives. For someone who can't or won't accept that things JUST HAPPEN, I suppose you can see the appeal of this.

My hairdresser was right, by the way. The accident, and her non-involvement in it, DID happen for a reason. The reason for the accident was an idiot driver thinking he could overtake uphill in front of a blind summit; and the reason for her non-involvement in it was that she'd had to stay at home to take delivery of a washing machine. But it's not that hard to see why string-pulling at a supernatural level might be thought to provide a more pleasing explanation.

97. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #159193 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 3:21 pm

alandhay: My sister was supposed to come along but couldn't make it due to work committments, and I returned her ticket. The drunk guy who asked the 5 min long question about CERN without using any actual sentences... He was the one who got my sisters returned ticket (He also poured his pint of beer down the back of the poor guy sitting in front of us)

I had to laugh when I read this. A colleague of mine had attended the event along with his boss - and it was his boss who had the beer poured down him! As (bad) luck would have it, it was a brand new and rather expensive jacket too! Don't worry though, Alan - your guilty secret is safe with me ;-)

98. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158998 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 10:08 am

Bonzai: The people who wrote the stories, of course.

But what the writers did or didn't mean doesn't form any part of the point I'm making. My point is simply about the number of Christians now who cite the personality of Jesus - as presented in the gospels - as the reason for their devotion. That's what I simply don't buy into.

99. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158949 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 8:18 am

Bonzai: Maybe he was not supposed to be an outstandingly wonderful character?

Meant by whom? God? I don't believe in him.

My point is that many Christians DO claim that he was/is outstandingly wonderful. And that I simply don't see where they get that from. The Jesus in the NT is a mixed bag at best - NOT the figure of perfection they make out. Nothing wrong with being a mixed bag - it's what we all are. But nothing that special about it either.

100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158934 by Paula Kirby on April 11, 2008 at 7:38 am

Bonzai: I actually see Jesus as a very sympathetic figure, a man-god who betrayed genuine human emotions. In some way he was supposed to encapsulate the fate of man, with all his humanity and vulnerability.

Well, all of us have humanity and vulnerability. I don't see Jesus as handling either of them in a way that makes him stand out particularly. As I said before, he had his good moments, but don't we all? He could also be a complete jerk. Again, so can we all. What I'm driving at is that many Christians (if I remember correctly, David Robertson is one) claim that it is the personality of Jesus that convinces them that he was/is God. I simply don't find that remotely persuasive. There is a myth that Jesus as shown in the NT was some sort of outstandingly wonderful character. I really don't find him that special.