101. AAI 07

Comment #83455 by Veronique on October 30, 2007 at 4:26 am

How can anyone justify a salary of one or three million a year? I ask you!! It is obscene. Where the majority of workers garner between $12,000 to $50,000, it is expected that they will understand these massively salaried CEOs??

It's an obscenity. Where do you work Scooter? What's your salary Scooter? What's your educational background Scooter? What's your family asset base Scooter?

If you are prepared to answer those questions honestly without prevaricating, maybe I will take you seriously. If you won't answer the questions then I will take you as the wanker you are projecting onto these virtual pages. No one can take you to task. You can wank to your heart's content.

You appear to be a poor specimen of the sort of humanity I left behind in my teens. Oooh, maybe you are still in your teens.

Do tell.
V

102. AAI 07

Comment #83444 by Veronique on October 30, 2007 at 3:58 am

216. Comment #83383 by notsobad

'Free' markets are an interesting phenomenon. It means different things to different people and different nations. It means nothing to America. Mere words on a page of diplomatic bullshit.

I remember, decades ago now, when America dumped millions of bushels of wheat into the Pacific rather than sell at a loss (or give) that excess to starving nations as a means of utilising the US excess of that commodity. Wheat was then grown under subsidies (it still is). I was gobsmacked at the appalling waste of food (and pollution) going into the Pacific. The beginning of my dislike of the American mindset started about then. It was fairly inchoate at that time because I was very young and hadn't worked out what this waste actually meant. However I had an emotional and horrified reaction to this news. And I have never forgotten it.

It was all Keynesian economics at that time. But I found I couldn't countenance this level of waste when Africa was starving. What would induce a profitable country to wilfully dump excess good food into an ocean rather than give it to starving peoples? Money? The arrogant 'pay your own way or we will dispose of it'. I have never been able to answer this question satisfactorily. Scooter would have probably approved, but he probably hadn't been born then.

To me, food waste is one of the worst things an individual or a country can endorse when people are starving. Dump essential food into an ocean?!! How immoral and economically heartless can you get!! Fucking morally bankrupt. I cannot accept such wastefulness under whatever economic aegis reigns at whatever time. I was appalled then, I am still appalled now.

Australia was the first nation to sign the international agreement endorsing free markets. Big deal. The US did us over. The US didn't sign!! The politicking between Australia and the US to actually develop free trade has been fraught within the ensuing decades. The only advantage Australia has now is the uranium resource that the US wants. So Australia can afford to be more hard line about its agricultural produce. But it doesn't really go far. We are at the bottom of the world so we pay freight in and freight out. It's a significant item in the breakdown of our GNP.

05. Comment #82922 by VanYoungman

Dear man, there was a time when I hankered to see Vermont, the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The northern ice flows that feed California. The Alaskan tundra. And many other places. I weep for what is being lost. I would love to meet you, talk and share a bottle of wine and give you a hug. I cannot, in all conscience, come to America. I wish I could. I know you would show me places that would take my breath away. Do you understand my moral stance? I hope so:-).

I am sorry that I feel so pissed off about the US:-).
V

103. AAI 07

Comment #83400 by Veronique on October 29, 2007 at 11:24 pm

207. Comment #83353 by Teratornis

The problem with politics is similar to the problem with religion: almost everyone tends to form strong opinions, even fanatical opinions, based on a subset of the available data, and the available data may not be sufficient to settle many of the contentious issues even if one human mind could digest all of it. Can anyone honestly claim to know exactly what effects a given policy will have? For example, what happens if we raise the minimum wage another dollar? Most people think they know what they are voting for, but do they? Can they?

No they can't:-).

We have a federal election on 24th Nov. So the pork barrelling has started. The electorate was told that $34 billion was to be offered as tax cuts. Within the next two days the polls had swung back towards the government, although it is still running second place and the betting odds reflect that.

One always likes to hope that the average voter will be cynical and savvy enough to see political porking for what it is. This happened at the same time as our Reserve Bank had warned, soto voce, that there may be another interest rise before the election and the IMF (or was it the OECD), in its report mentioned that Australia should keep a lid on its debt. At the same time China redeemed some of its US cash reserves, sending the US$ south and our A$ over 90¢ to the US$. Iran now gets its oil paid for in yen (20%) and the euro (65%).

I pessimistically think that people vote with their feet and governments pass legislation and introduce policies that will keep them in power. The only possible balance we have is that voting in compulsory in this country. I am not saying that the voting preferences are rational but it does tend to smooth the graph.

I have only responded to the bit of your post that piqued my interest. Sorry:-).

I had a mother and son come to me asking me to investigate and write a letter to slam a doctor who was treating the man and father in their family. The son came with loads of medical info about Dad's chemotherapy regime, his platelet count, etc. etc. Dad died, the grief stricken family wants to blame the medicos (this is a common tale in the process of denial).

I talked to my quack who is mighty fine and who told me that, at least, 30% of the human population does (and will) succumb to cancers of various sorts. As a population control measure, it's pretty shitty, but bugs and cancers get us. The scientific fraternity is researching as much as it can to try to combat our vulnerabilities to disease. I think it does pretty well at this, at the moment.

There are surgical procedures that can be performed by remote control. We have some amazing computer generated and remotely linked programmes. It will only get better.

It is very exciting actually. Now we have to tackle the exponential rise in global human population so that we don't consume our future. Big, hard and unpopular in governmental circles. So it's never properly addressed.

How do we handle that problem Teratornis? I wish I knew.

Cheers
V

Ah, lots of posts since I read yours, my friend.
V

104. Face to faith

Comment #83345 by Veronique on October 29, 2007 at 6:22 pm

45. Comment #83105 by Philip1978

Thanks, I had a lot of fun writing that comment:-). I wanted to use every derogatory word/phrase I could without reverting to swearing (as I am wont to do).

I am so pleased you are having a good hair day for no reason whatsoever:-).

Apropos of the argument about Sam Harris' desire to let go of the word atheist because of its baggage, do you approve of the positive spin I put on atheist in that post?

Maybe the better way to reclaim the word is to refer to the religites as non-atheists. That puts them on the back foot and adds a great deal of positivity to atheist as a word. Could it help?

What think you, my happy friend:-).
V

105. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #83121 by Veronique on October 29, 2007 at 2:25 am

40. Comment #82675 by ChrisMcL

If you read my previous post, you will have noticed that it is fairly easy to create, compose written posts in a text editor. Indeed, Josh has suggested this at the top of the comment box.

I use Skype to contact my family, not people I don't know, so, no, I am not about to communicate with you via Skype.

I actually think that the composing of written comments aids the ability to argue carefully. The judicious use of language in written comments is an educative process.

This is salutary. So don't be disappointed about lost posts; use my method of composing posts and you should do well and never lose another post.

Cheers
V

106. AAI 07

Comment #83103 by Veronique on October 29, 2007 at 12:45 am

132. Comment #83076 by Juleofdenial

That's interesting. At the neighbourhood centre where I am involved, people needing food come in and are interviewed by Emergency Relief volunteers. The applicants are given food vouchers stipulating that voucher money cannot be spent on cigarettes or dog food.

I know there are street deals that go on. The voucher gets sold to someone for the face value and the swapped cash is spent on drugs, alcohol or whatever.

The supermarket with which the centre has a business relationship never gives any cash back to the voucher holder. If the purchases are over the voucher value those must be paid for by cash. If the purchases made are under the voucher value, (never happens:-)) then that becomes a credit on the centre's monthly account from the supermarket.

There is only one supermarket where the vouchers can be redeemed. The centre used to make out pharmaceutical vouchers, but stopped when it became apparent that the street deals were operating mainly in this area.

Can't do much about welfare cheques though. The welfare money is credited directly into the recipient's bank account and the recipient can withdraw that money and spend it on whatever he/she chooses. No control over spending.

How come the US hasn't tightened control on the food voucher system? Or has it now that it uses a credit card system?

The centre can't control how the food voucher money is spent. I know the Managing Director of the supermarket and he has told me of some amazingly inappropriate purchases made.

As I said earlier, I don't judge, but I have to say that I am continually staggered by the inability of some people to act responsibly:-). Having said that, most of the voucher holders are fine, just poor. They spend the little money the centre can give them quite well. At least we know the kids are being fed, by and large.

As for Scooter, he is a product of an un-empathetic, near fascistic country that I wouldn't even go near.

Cheers
V

107. Face to faith

Comment #83096 by Veronique on October 28, 2007 at 11:58 pm

40. Comment #83026 by Corylus

Right on Corylus! I just came home and read the comments at the Guardian. Vernon does get a thrashing:-).

One of the posters linked to Vernon's 'review' of TGD on 18th October that is deeply offensive. He gets a thrashing there as well from posters. He is impervious and totally intellectually dishonest. He suffers from immense cognitive dissonance. Here's the link:

http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear/index.php?2007/10/14/747-dawkins-on-the-couch

He's arrogant and has an undeserved high opinion of his abilities and knowledge. He is hubris personified.

Time for a red:-).
V

108. Face to faith

Comment #82989 by Veronique on October 28, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Why not leave a comment at the Guardian?

Here's mine:

What an absolutely silly article by Vernon. I am astounded how he and so many others get it all so stupefyingly wrong.

Vernon cites the title Unweaving the Rainbow then totally dismisses its content, without, presumably, having read anything between its covers.

He says:

'In the scientific age the intrinsic meaningfulness of the natural world is lost.'

What a load of bollocks and how utterly arrogant of him. Maybe if Vernon stopped heavy-handedly dividing the world into atheists and non-atheists and saw people as people he would forgo writing rubbish like this article.

What on earth does 'intrinsic meaningfulness' mean? And I am certainly not like my primitive ancestors. I am in the 21st century, my sense of awe and wonder undiminished. My ire is up however, being told by this twerp that I can't appreciate the natural world because I am able to understand the science behind its processes.

'This wonder is different in quality from contemplative wonder, which does not undo but lets be.'

How would Vernon, locked up in his own miniscule brain, have any idea what the rest of us contemplate? What we feel? What we think? How dare he write such codswallop and make such assumptions.

Here he goes again:

'It is when you deny the separate domains of these magisteria that you erode the capacity for contemplative wonder.'

Tripe!! Pure unmitigated tripe!

And again:

This must be what people sense when they fear that science is unweaving the rainbow. The worry is that it leaves nothing sacred.

So that's it. Vernon wants the sacredness, the ignorance of knowledge so that he can hold on grimly to fantastical myths. Ah well, he did start out in life as an Anglican priest. What can anyone expect from such an addled brain.

People fear what they don't know. Vernon is appealing to that fear in people and trying to tell them that it is all right for them to shun science and knowledge; that they are better off with their lack of understanding. He even intimates that this is a 'superior' stance to that of knowledge.

What an irresponsible position to take and waffle on about. Well, Vernon, I refuse to wander back to the dark ages and believe that goddidit. I refuse to feel fear at the beauty of the storm that is raging over me, frightening my cats, but not me. The rain is cooling the earth and the ambient temperature, the lightning is stunning and the thunder, magnificent. I am enjoying this storm immensely. Take a flying leap Vernon.

It still makes me very cross that people like him are given column space to write such drivel and attempting to keep people in ignorance and fear of our extraordinary planet. Then again, I guess that's what religion is all about.

Back to the bronze age anyone? Don't forget your vaccines now, will you? Or your antibiotics.

What twaddle Vernon writes!
V

I'll check the comment thread at the Guardian now. I hope Vernon got a thrashing:-)

Good morning everyone (and the storm has been raging all night as well. It's gorgeous:-))
V

109. AAI 07

Comment #82835 by Veronique on October 28, 2007 at 2:02 am

No one seems to have taken into account that with 6.7 billion humans existing in this current world with its reducing resource base, it is inevitable that every country will have its poverty-ridden members. The numbers are increasing. Welfare support can't go far enough.

Does this mean that those who have marketable abilities (often an accident of birth meaning education and an asset base) should merely say to the others 'I am alright, fuck you Jack'? Die in the streets arsehole; get a job arsehole, buy accommodation arsehole, look after yourself arsehole, stop relying on my taxes (that I resent) being spent on you arsehole, get a life arsehole.

I, personally, am unable to take this tack. By all current standards, I am independently wealthy. I can say it was an accident of birth, with some strenuous additions from me to add to that wealth. Fine; I was and am still able to add to that wealth. My children and some favoured organizations will benefit when I cark it.

Down the road from my house is a rotunda built by the good ladies of the Country Women's Association in the 1960s. It's falling apart now but is used as a night-time shelter for some of the homeless people in my shire. 7 to 10 of them. They come into the Neighbourhood Centre each day for coffee, tea and a baked bean sandwich; they also access our Emergency Relief program and receive vouchers redeemable at one of our local supermarkets for food only. None of them has ever bought a latte from a restaurant or played chess on outdoor tables, or discussed Hume or Descartes.

The money for this (and other projects/programs, including women's resource and domestic violence and early intervention, ie. kids in danger) comes from both state and federal governments. It's a tight set of criteria that has to be matched in annual applications and the annual increments are always below par. There is never enough money to go around. I work in this organization.

Scooter has no real knowledge of a welfare state (because he is a Yank in Yankee land where there is no real welfare for the disadvantaged) and abhors it because of the abuses attached to it. Fair enough, there are always abuses. That's human nature. He declares himself a libertarian. I loathe ideologies that are taken as writ. Scooter would do well to critically analyse the ideology to which he has attached his star and make some empathetic decisions about the nature of human beings.

On the 'greed is good' side:

Insider trading is an abuse. Lying to shareholders is an abuse (happens all the time). Corporations utilising tax avoidance (not minimalisation!) is an abuse. Not declaring all sources of income is an abuse. Millions of dollars being paid as salaries to CEOs who rely on underlings for information on which to make investment decisions is an abuse. The system is way out of kilter.

I am not a bleeding heart who thinks she will get lollies from god by helping the disadvantaged. These people need help, empathy, sympathy and a way out of their circumstance. I can only do my best. I cannot afford to judge; that way lies madness and probably arrogance of the sort that Scooter expounds.

What can I say? I am so glad I don't live in America. What a horrible ethos to have to live under. I will never go there; I will not give the US a red cent of tourist money of my disposable income. Let China redeem all their US foreign exchange bonds. Bring the US to its knees. I can't wait. 14 months left with BushCo. Shit am I frightened? Yes I am.

Time for a rather lovely red – Yellow Tail shiraz. Yum
V

110. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82772 by Veronique on October 27, 2007 at 2:24 pm

32. Comment #82638 by Vinelectric

Maybe the family ties so encouraged by religious families are cloying and based on their 'faith'. The children remain children and rational, critical thought and respect for others doesn't develop past the 'faith based' relationships. Maybe the children only ever see their parents as parents and vice versa.

Maybe the ties that develop in families without that 'faith' are based on respect, interaction, questioning and the ultimate development of friendship as children grow into adults. Maybe the adult children see their parents as people in their own right and vice versa.

That's the difference as I perceive it. So no, I don't think the author of this article has a valid point at all.

Looking back at what kraut posted are some interesting studies:-).

Good morning all:-)
V

111. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #82625 by Veronique on October 27, 2007 at 3:09 am

Where's ChrisMcL? It's been 6 or more hours since I posted.

Damn, don't tell me he's going to side step questions! This has happened on so many threads, it's becoming regular.

I'll keep checking back here, on occasion.

Cheers
V

112. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82501 by Veronique on October 26, 2007 at 1:24 pm

116. Comment #82488 by m76

Nice. That is applied Stephen Roberts. I can see that as a better use of him than what I currently do.

Your different use is subtle but would have a stronger impact. Thanks

In the real world, it's a beautiful morning:-)
V

113. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82323 by Veronique on October 26, 2007 at 4:04 am

94. Comment #82314 by Quetzalcoatl

Well! more tea!! It is,after all, your edict:-) I just bent the rules a bit as all believers do:-)

I will enjoy having a drink for you instead...These dots are supposed to travel drunkenly down the virtual page. What's wrong with this medium? It can't replicate my instructions. Damn, I am disappointed.

Shakes head in disbelief
Vxx

114. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82316 by Veronique on October 26, 2007 at 3:26 am

494. Comment #82297 by steve99

Don't trust Diacanu's optimistic statement. I have seen you continue to be caught, dear man:-) trying so hard to be reasonable in the face of the religite unreason posted on this site.

Diacanu is much more direct than you are and maybe by the 100x that you mention. But he's towy and won't be able to resist pithy interjections into debate.

I love it mate; it doesn't get anywhere as both of us know, but it is extremely entertaining for all readers and those who post. Hell, you know I have lost my temper in posts over the past months. That most certainly entertained other readers:-). That much was obvious.

Wait until Diacanu meets the Flea. Hahaha. That will be fun:-)

Cheers
V

115. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82307 by Veronique on October 26, 2007 at 3:09 am

91. Comment #82303 by Quetzalcoatl

Oh Quetz. I am so sorry that you didn't see them. I had to have several non tea-Quetz drinks to calm myself:-) after Josh pulled them. Bugger.

I don't understand the politics, but it smacks of AAI hegemony. I am not impressed.

Or maybe it has to do with the individual speakers' publicity agents. Fucked if I know. It's pathetic and I know Josh thinks this as well. He has just been constrained by some legal (or pretend wank) bullshit or another.

Aaarrgghh
More wine, my darling
V

116. Brief Regarding the California Same-Sex Marriage Case

Comment #82287 by Veronique on October 26, 2007 at 2:17 am

Good on you gcdavis

I also think Tabash has been doing a good job over the years.

I wish that we weren't merely an act of your parliament. There's a push in Oz to develop a republican model; I don't have a problem with it. The last Constitutional Convention rejected the proposed model because of the added power to be given to the PM (proposed President).

I guess we will keep trying and try to ensure good checks and balances and limitation of Presidential power.

Seeing the Bush administration's abuse of power has put our republican aspirations on the back burner for a while:-)

In the US, separation was sought and written into the Constitution, but the country was founded by dissenting and ex-patriot religites. It was always bound to be problematic, in my view. What is happening there is appalling, but it hasn't the same punch in the Commonwealth countries (I hope!!)

Anyway, thanks for your comment - I, at least, appreciate it:-)
V

117. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82264 by Veronique on October 26, 2007 at 1:04 am

Hahaha. You got it in one Diacanu but you couldn't resist could you:-). I have to say I certainly do like rambling bullshittery.

Steve Zara is right you know, this comment thread won't finish though it may dribble for a bit. 479 posts and counting:-). The last thread DG hijacked developed into a thousand and something comments. I find it very amusing from the side-lines.

Epeeist, Lauregon, Goldy - you should all know better, hahaha.

Sinbad, keep well. We get fires like that in Oz as well. They are disastrous.

Ah dear, another non-Quetz drink is in order
V:-).

118. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82175 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 7:39 pm

9. Comment #82100 by Mango

Ah, our own Stephen Roberts. I am glad you use both points from his quote independently. I have used it and sometimes it has been devastating to the hearer. Blank horrified look, then a smidgen of reluctant light in the eyes. Only once did I ever get to develop the point further. Very satisfying it was too:-).

I don't have a problem referring to myself as being atheistic. It is rarely as bald as that. I always add something to it; I tie the word in with reason, rational thinking, pragmatism and always use Occam's Razor with a description of its meaning. The more descriptive words you use together with atheism, the more atheism, as a word, is likely to have its baggage modified. That's my take anyway.

You never know what is likely to be retained in someone's head. I keep it light and easy. I am always friendly and by now most people know how I think because of my religi-board. It's getting easier all the time in my little neck of the woods. Two more people joined my lending library borrowers this week. Terrific!!

And I am sussing out more atheists on the block. It's summer here and getting warmer. My next move is to advertise in our local paper for a front yard party with wine and nibblies for atheists and agnostics to replace a xmas garden party. Could be fun:-). I have a lovely front yard.

Good idea?
V

119. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81985 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm

116. Comment #81946 by Diacanu

Well, you are quite correct!! I scoured this site when I first found it in Dec.'06. I had double copies of everything written by RD and then I just kept gathering books as they were published and didn't bother going to the recommended list again.

Thank you for setting us right. I'd still like Stenger to have a higher profile somewhere, even if he is retired.

And thanks for that link decius

I'll start looking for an audio of that debate. I am pleased that he is formidable in debate:-). Let's hope that he returns to the fray – he said he's in Colorado enjoying nature, bless his cotton socks.

Cheers
V

120. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81878 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 10:35 am

70. Comment #81453 by Lauregon

consider it an unexpected but delicious brain orgasm sourced in your own body chemistry

What a delightful description:-). Thank you and I will use it if I may.

85. Comment #81523 by Diacanu

That video was utterly hilarious:-).

99. Comment #81690 by decius

Thanks for the link. I have just listened to Stenger (I read his book a few weeks ago) and found him easy and calm and he presented his arguments extraordinarily well:-).

So I am wondering, like you, why Stenger isn't more visible. He certainly should be promoted on this site; his arguments against the existence of god are well described. He would be another string to the bow and is needed.

I would guess that he would also be unflappable in debate. Though debating, as has been pointed out, is an art, certainly not one in which I am versed. I'd be hopeless. Do you know if Stenger has been in live debate?

These guys are all so different and start from different vantage points. Practically all bases are covered by now; you'd think that the line-up would be far more formidable to theists than it appears.

Ah well, keep on keeping on, I guess.
V

121. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #81857 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 9:59 am

Chris

I have learned to compose my comments in Word so I can take my time. An added benefit is that I can alt+tab back and forth to the comment thread and ensure that I address what I want to. The other added benefit is that Word alerts me to poor grammar and spelling errors so that my comment is better constructed than it would otherwise be:-).

The only irritant is that using the html tags to italicise always defaults to an upper case 'I' so I have to change it. But that's minor. Everything else that I use works. I need to learn new html tricks though.

When I have corrected any errors and am happy with the comment, I can either login to RDF, or if I am already logged in I ctrl+5, copy and paste into the comment box and submit. As Teratornis says, sometimes even though it appears that you are still logged in, the login may have timed-out and you lose your comment. But you still have it in Word. So login again, copy and paste.

A much less frustrating way to go:-). I find it better than composing in the comment box and copying and pasting to Word the way Teratornis does.

On other matters:

You say you may agree with the content of Tabash's talk. Is that a yes or a no?

I tend to think that most attempts to mobilise atheists have been less than successful until now. I think the time has come and I don't disagree that the strong injection of the newly published anti-religious books has provided the impetus.

I commented on another thread that, although Deschner (writing since the 1950s) has not been translated into English, it is NOW possible that his works will be because the Zeitgeist is changing. There are many published atheist books that are starting to be re-published again now. This is good. I don't think there was a concerted effort by our big four to publish at the same time, after all RD said he wanted to write his book 6 years before he actually did. It is serendipitous that it all came together about 12-18 months ago.

But it doesn't deny the works/activism etc of those who came before. They are still saying what they have said before however, the climate is more conducive now.

On a personal note, I don't find Tabash boring at all. He is very measured in his talks, doesn't crack jokes and is a pretty serious fellow. That's his style. I am not bored with what he had to say because I agree with him and am pleased that he gave that particular talk.

There is a battle on a lot of different fronts; church/state separation is the one he is intensely interested in. Good on him for re-stating it again and again and using historical references to remind people how to argue for the separation in debate.

There is a tendancy (sic) here to consider the source of criticism rather than the critical ideas.

I can only assume that your critical ideas were developed in your lost comment. I see no evidence of them in your posted comments.

"Who the hell are YOU to say that?"

.
It wasn't who the hell, but what the hell can you or have you offered in the pursuance of this battle that is looming larger and larger on a global horizon. I did ask you where the hell you were coming from.

And diacanu is waiting for answers to his two questions as well. Maybe it would be salutary to address these things rather than devise epithets for Tabash.

Cheers
V

122. The God Delusion and Alister E McGrath

Comment #81611 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 1:02 am

5. Comment #81607 by toomanytribble

Hahaha. Nice one:-)

Cheers
V

123. The God Delusion and Alister E McGrath

Comment #81606 by Veronique on October 25, 2007 at 12:52 am

Quite right BAEOZ

However I thought I would transcribe McGrath's first sentences in reply to Crittenden. They remind me of the uncut interview between McGrath and RD. McGrath kept opening his argument with statements like 'You make a good point here' or 'I understand where you are coming from but' or 'From the Christian point of view' or 'Christians understand that'

It always appears to ameliorate – I don't trust a word of it.

Here are the opening statements in this interview with Crittenden:

Well I would certainly agree with that.

Well that's right.

I think down the ages, Christian theologians have very often…

Well I think certainly that's true of transubstantiation.

Well certainly Dawkins has a theory of culture,

Well that's certainly a very fair point,

Yes, there's no doubt that the most persuasive part of the book…

Certainly some of them would like to believe that.

Well it's an intriguing transition and certainly in the book 'The Selfish Gene'

That's right.

Well I think there are two things they can do.

Well that is an important point that does need to be considered,

I quite agree.

I think that's a very important point.

I think the real difficulty is that we need values at this time more than ever.

I'd agree with that.

Well Dawkins and I are both men of faith.

Can I see the McGrath habitual prevarication and inability to say anything that has teeth? I think so.

I am a little cranky with Crittenden for letting McGrath off the hook so easily. Crittenden can be better than that.

McGrath conveniently neglects to mention that RD talks of Christianity as the cultural norm in which he grew up. That's why he doesn't address Islam with the same microscope.

Humph
V

124. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #81373 by Veronique on October 24, 2007 at 4:24 pm

While I may be old and not an American, I am most assuredly aware of the danger that the religious right is mounting a very clear and dedicated campaign to put people in positions of legal and political power in America.

That is what Tabash is talking about. To call him a yawn is to miss entirely what he was trying to do and succeeding in getting across in his talk at AAI.

Sure, there are authors writing about the irrationality and dangers of religion and it is a topic whose time has come (yet again). RD has collated points he has been making since 1976, added some more and published a book devoted to the delusions and dangers of religion. Tabash has a good track record fighting for abortion rights, continued separation of church and state and the decriminalisation of prostitution. He's been debating Christians since 1993. He is a well-respected lawyer. America needs people like Tabash when push comes to shove. That AAI invited him to address the Convention shows that level of respect.

Deschner is German, older than I, has published a lot of material and RD was awarded the Deschner prize. Does that also make Deschner a yawn because he has not been translated into English and you and I have not read his work? Does it make Sagan a yawn because he died before the new wave of anti-religious books were published? Is Dennett a yawn because he has had decades to organize atheist Americans into a serious social, economic, and political force? And presumably failed.

Teratornis may have articulated what he sees as your position, but yours was an ad hominem against Tabash, because he bores you. What about the content of his speech? Is that a yawn as well or is it just Tabash? If it just Tabash, then your attack is of no account and irritates other posters.

If your criticism has to do with the content of Tabash's talk, then why not critique that content for the rest of us here? What is your fundamental reasoning?

And, bye the bye, what have you been doing for the decades wherein Tabash and his ilk failed? Have you elected to study law, science, politics or philosophy in order to assist your fellow atheistic Americans into forming a serious social, economic and political force?

Have you seen God's Next Army yet?

Looking forward (I hope) to your reply
V

125. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #81019 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 10:56 pm

Hey REBEL

Do you recall saying this on this site:

Religion is like the keeper of irrational values that prevents humankind from culturally evolving to the next level

I hope you do, because I printed it on my religi-board (Yorker's term) which is a blackboard outside my house on which I post quotes designed to make people think.

This is the first time I have had the opportunity to thank you:-) I always attribute quotes, so you are up there as well.

Cheers
V

126. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #81017 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 10:49 pm

20. Comment #80986 by Shadow Boxer

Good!! My response to Bishop was because of a Greens' media alert - yes, it was months and months ago. Did you find out whether AUSAID moneys are able to be used to promote female reproductive health and abortion clinics?

I think the caveat on abortion clinics and education were the biggies in this.

But if I'm wrong (which is not unheard of), believe me, I am as outraged as you at this stupidity by our government.

Ha! I get things wrong as well. It isn't hard with the increasing secrecy that permeates our government:-)

Cheers
V

127. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81007 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 10:18 pm

MIND_REBEL, hey:-)

It's good to see you back here:-)

I am so pleased that I will toast you with a red wine right now!!

Cheers
V

128. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81002 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Oh Diacanu the link you provided doesn't augur well for our listening to the D'Souza/Hitch debate:-(.

As regards strategies for debating religites, a few quotes might not go astray.
Someone on these threads quoted this from Hitler:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's Truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter

Great quote - cherry picking maybe, but it wouldn't be bad to pull out when the religites use the 'Hitler was an atheist' regime. Any accusation of cherry picking is easily countered.

Now we need some quotes from Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Lenin that show their modus operandi.

I do not think quickly on my feet and I am not sure that anyone can do much more than anticipate the obvious arguments that any religite will come out with and stick to hammering them. And we all know those key points.

I don't think it is demeaning to pick key points and pursue them relentlessly. What is it they say about persistence?

As Steve and macros intimate, there are more non-debates happening than actual debates. It maybe wiser to not debate in these non-debates and just become more strategic and bulldoggish in response. Don't let go of key points made by the opposition. And be prepared with notes on a few of those key points.

Am I being silly? Or naïve?
V

129. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #80969 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Crazymalc

This is the letter I sent to our Minister for Training, Science & Technology, when I became aware of the caveat on aid moneys.

I have only just been made aware of the 'abortion' caveat on AusAID overseas. That there is a ban on the use of government aid to educate women in developing countries on the management of their reproductive health issues, including abortions is so hypocritical as to leave me breathless.

I understand the original inclusion of the ban was instigated by Brian Harradine. Well, I ask you, is there a greater misogynist in Parliament? That is possibly better left unanswered.

It matters not what your or my religious belief may be. There is absolutely no excuse for foisting any of its dogma on anyone else.

I urge you to support the lifting of this ban on AusAID delivery. Australia and America are the only two countries to have adopted this type of ban on overseas aid. This ban comes from a dark-age mentality and/or a religious dogma that no longer has any place in the 21st century that has a burgeoning global population that is overseeing the reduction in resources available for that population. Poverty is on the increase, even in our country. In America, the percentage of its citizens living below the poverty line is the highest among first world countries.

By withholding access to methods that are congruent with best health practices, the Australian government is, in effect, implicitly condoning the illegal abortion practices in those countries that lead to the death of women. For they will seek abortions from clandestine abortionists regardless. Thousands die because there is no access to safe abortions. Australia finds this acceptable? What arrant hubris!

One can think of many reasons why women opt for abortion.

* The ban on condom use that sees many poverty-ridden families saddled with children, a large number of whom don't survive childhood.

* The lack of female reproductive health education that leaves women unable to prevent pregnancies.

* Poor and often unsafe medical care that leads to an upsurge in disease (including, but not limited to HIV/AIDS) that then makes pregnancy unsafe.

* Economically impoverished people for whom another child is just out of the question.

That a first world country like Australia, that is also presumed to be secular, should dictate to a third world country that desperately needs our aid, how that aid is not to be used is an arrogance that I find appalling.

In sorrow and outrage,
Veronica Guy

Never got a reply except an automated response.
Pathetic
V

130. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #80967 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 6:13 pm

14. Comment #80962 by Crazymalc

Not the same as your experience, but did you realise that overseas Aid money from both the US and Australia (the only two countries to my knowledge) bears the caveat that no Aid money is to be used on contraception, abortion clinics or female reproductive health education?

Isn't that appalling? I am sure that some agencies have developed strategies to get around this stricture, but the fact that the money is given with the rider is dreadful.

BTW, I loathe the Roman Catholic Church edicts and there isn't a word to describe my feelings about the Pope.

Cheers
V

131. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80943 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 3:27 pm

ChrisMcL

Where the hell are you coming from? Tabash very clearly enunciates, for me, the immense danger that the religious right poses in the US.

Did you watch the video about the graduates from the Patrick Henry College and the cold, hard and disciplined founder of that College, Michael Farris?

Find it - it's called God's Next Army. If it doesn't chill you then you have lost the plot. Go and yawn somewhere else.

Disappointed in you
V

Edit Here's the link Chris

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7630851222567912489

V

132. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80914 by Veronique on October 23, 2007 at 1:31 pm

368. Comment #80857 by irate_atheist

Once again, debate here has descended to a stand-off between those that can spot absurdities and those that can only spout them.

It always does:-).

It's 5.30am here. I wake up, make a cup of tea, sit down to read the overnight posts and end up in fits of laughter and spilt tea:-). Who's your avatar – I am only an antipodean from the prison camp of Australia (as Henri will remind us), but I don't recognise the face. Love the expression though:-).

Dianelos had hijacked this thread as well. What a hoot. Ah well, never mind. There are new posters who aren't bored shitless with him yet. Let them take him on. I will move away.

381. Comment #80882 by steve99

I couldn't agree more:-). You are a kind man. I am starting to think that Dianelos should be trolled. Although I am not in favour of banning posters, Dianelos hogs some of these threads and wastes everyone's time. When one thread runs dry, he merely shifts to another.

At least Mark Taunton had the grace to bid us goodbye from the one thread that concerned him. Paul Emecz confines himself to one thread. But Dianelos is a slut who moves on any thread and waits for his bait to be picked up by an unwary poster. Then the BS waffle starts and he posts dozens of long, meaningless comments.

I would hope that posters ignore him. He is seriously unfunny and a waste of time.

Sorry bluejway, I'm leaving this thread and I suspect others will too. I would have liked to join you in a drink and discussion (it may have gone nowhere, who knows?) but I'm outta here:-).

Nice to welcome you to this site diacanu, see you 'round Lauregon and others:-).

Good morning and goodbye
V

133. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80742 by Veronique on October 22, 2007 at 11:29 pm

But impugning my understanding of atheism is a mistake and it does not help your case. – Bluejway – 315

I am not interested in making a 'case'. Your 'understanding' of atheism is badly flawed.

Could we agree that atheism (of the kind of Hitch) is a set of logical arguments an (sic) conclusions based on history and other data (like criticism of holy books)? – Bluejway – 326

There is no way that I could agree to your proposed definition. For me, the understanding (at whatever level of that understanding) of the processes that govern the workings of the world, its inhabitants of all flavours and the universe in which this world finds itself are observed tested, re-tested and have yet to be disbanded.

There are always a few wild and woolly assertions by some scientists that are usually brought to our attention by other scientists and those assertions are eventually disbanded because newer observations and evidence don't support them. However they often stimulate new theories that are then tested, re-tested etc….

The mountains of observable evidence that supports evolution theory, for instance, makes it harder and harder to disprove, although just one instance could theoretically, knock it on its head. The theory is, by now, considered a fact, except by those who insist on clinging to a belief in an inerrant bible and whose convoluted and downright wilfully wrong arguments to support that don't cut any scientific mustard whatsoever.

The logical arguments that attend natural observations and those non-observable scientific theories that prove to be very accurate predictors of events, make very compelling arguments for a scientific basis for understanding our world etc. I learn, as do we all, all the time through scientific endeavour. Through the reliability of science (NB. Theories always sit on the brink waiting for someone to present evidence to refute them), it appears to follow that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is one of refutation of the supernatural, ie. the biblical description of the world, its inhabitants of all flavours and the universe in which this world finds itself.

Since the conclusion itself comes from these natural and other observations of science and logic, atheism is the result. That means only that biblical explanations are refuted.

I'll say it again:

The logical arguments are scientific, the conclusion is the refutation of biblical explanations.

So, no atheism is not a set of logical arguments and conclusions based on history and other data.

And that is that.

To my knowledge there is no instance of pathogenesis among homo sapiens. Don't even bother quoting the bible and the virgin birth at me, there is no objective evidence for it.

There is no way any member of homo sapiens has ever come back from the dead and ascended to 'heaven'. Don't quote the bible at me, there is no objective evidence.

Why you religious chaps come on here and quote biblical passages in order to prove those biblical passages and never seem to realise that it does not constitute a logical argument, is beyond me.

Come up with some objective evidence, not fanciful, subjective and mysterious so-called 'evidence' and maybe I will be prepared to listen. Until then, I have no choice but to see your belief in the biblical explanations as wilfully ignorant and not befitting 21st century man. Especially someone who can read, write and has had a 'decent' education. So, yes I 'impugn', if you like, your understanding of atheism.

I conclude that you are stubborn and ignorant, have no desire to increase your understanding of anything that is likely to be presented to you on these threads and have merely arrived here with an arrogance that is breathtaking to all of us.

For the record, unlike Lauregon, I came 'right away' to the conclusion that biblical stories were just stories and that science made sense. I had no religious upbringing to erode. Evolution has never appeared counter-intuitive to me. Just another Mazda moment, when the light went on with the almost audible clink of all the cogs fitting together in my brain. No superstition, no magic, no belief or faith, just Occam's Razor. Instantly made sense. Magical explanations are mighty counter-intuitive to my mind. No way they are believable. Just no way.

One thing Hitchens does say is that, if we knew then (2-4,000 years ago) what we know now, religious beliefs would never have garnered a toe-hold in our societies and/or cultures. It is time all these myths were consigned to the grave where all myths end up eventually.

Bye, bye Zeus, I knew you well. Loved the myths, I did – never saw them as anything but. Still don't. Never will.

Time for a drink
V

134. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80664 by Veronique on October 22, 2007 at 2:46 pm

-Um, actually Veronique, the whole idea of Original Sin is that it was for the SIN of stealing and eating of the fruit of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL that Mankind was condemned both to death, and to eternal punishment in the flames of hell. This is why we need redemption, at all, according to the believers. So it was not "god imbued", but "god forbidden" and for acting against that we became "god forsaken". – Euthyphro. 184

This thread has been exploring whether or not believers are more moral than unbelievers. I have no religious training whatsoever and am painfully trying to understand the religite mind. It is difficult because it is soooo irrational and is based on irrational premises.

What hit me reading Frankus' post was the realisation that all believers think that everyone is imbued, by god, with the sense of morality that is described (however incoherently) in the bible.

Original sin was not what I was referring to, but it falls under the same cover-all that believers think that all of us are born with, whether we be believers or no.

coretemprising – 186.

I will re-post a comment I made to Mark Taunton on another thread when he asked the same question:-).

Ahura Mazda is the Avestan language name for a divinity exalted by Zoroaster as the one uncreated creator, hence God.

General Electric marketed incandescent light bulbs under the trade name of Mazda throughout the first half of the 20th century.

Colloquially, it became a term used to indicate enlightenment (somewhat cynically and applied to pretentious people who became enamoured of religious beliefs way outside their cultural background).

I use the word (there are others that are also indicative) to indicate the feeling of "Wow. I didn't realise that". "Sheesh, why didn't I understand that before". "Crikey Moses, I hadn't thought of that" etc. A bright light of understanding of something hitherto shrouded in darkness.

My use of the word in my comment had a peculiar mixture of cynicism and a desire to crack open that head of yours and let some rational light shine through the grey matter:-).

I am surprised that you haven't come across Mazda in your travels. The saying has been around for a long time.

I was thanking Frankus for providing, in his post, enough of an explanation that allowed me to understand something I had hitherto not realised. That's all it was.

Good morning everyone
V

135. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80568 by Veronique on October 22, 2007 at 7:32 am

This is impossible.

Thanks Frankus post 58. You have just tipped me over the edge. When my Catholic friend smiles at me and says 'God moves in mysterious ways' she is actually saying that it doesn't matter that I am an atheist, because god has imbued in all of us, believer or not, the recognition of right and wrong; the ability to discern.

And, of course, that ability doesn't come from the bible. The bible is merely the explanation of this. Morality is god-given and immutable.

What a frustrating mind-set to have to deal with!! You can't win at all.

Thank you Frankus – it is an impossible task to talk reason with believers. I guess I won't stop trying, but the gigantic leap needed to discard the 'god has given it to you when he breathed life into you' is an impossible front on which to argue.

Your post provided me with a small, but important, Mazda moment. And a slightly better understanding of the religite mind-set:-). I am glad I went back and read your post again.

Goodnight all
V

136. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80395 by Veronique on October 21, 2007 at 3:57 pm

304. Comment #80280 by bluejway

I am constantly amazed by people who misunderstand what atheism actually is. I am not prepared to develop an argument with you, but would like to re-post some pithy comments from this site that may make it easier for you. These comments have been made somewhat wearily by contributors in answer to questions and points made by posters such as you.

It appears that you keep on trying to argue a defence of your hastily worded but ill-founded and ultimately untenable position.

Religion is to reason what rigor mortis is to dancing

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby

If rationalism is your attitude, then atheism is going to be most likely your conclusion

Atheism is not a belief. It is nothing more than the refusal to take something as given that is not supported by evidence

What binds the atheist rationalist and humanist community together is ideas not ideology. It shares a basic set of understandings about the Earth and how it functions

I think I'm being fair in these comments. No?

No.

Cheers
V

137. The greatest debate

Comment #80379 by Veronique on October 21, 2007 at 2:39 pm

6. Comment #80354 by

I have linked articles over the months and never had them put up and have never received an acknowledgment of receipt either.

I think the address is the correct one. Why don't you ask Russell which address he used?

Then again, it might be editorial policy. I am just not sure at all what goes on.

While you want to link the Devil's article, did you click on the related article and read about the lack of genetic diversity that maybe underlies the spread of this contagious cancer? That the Devils' immune system can't distinguish this as 'foreign' and therefore doesn't counter attack.

Sequestering healthy animals on islands is one way, but genetic diversity is likely to reduce further.

Big problem indeed!

Cheers
V

138. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80154 by Veronique on October 20, 2007 at 9:09 am

One of the things about debates, speeches and/or Q&A sessions is whether or not the combatants or questioners can engage the audience. If the arguments put forward by both combatants and/or questioner and answerer can engage the audience intellectually, then, as far as I am concerned, one has a good exchange of views.

A great example of this was the email debate between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris, posted in its entirety, as it happened, on this site. The reader (us) was persuaded by the arguments of both Sullivan and Harris to the extent that there was an engaging questioning and rational persuasion from both authors of this debate. This delineates the very core of a reasonable debate.

Now Hitchens, here, was not involved in a debate but more in the delivery of his stance. The Q&A that prompted his responses was argued well by him. It is the first time I have listened to cogent arguments in favour of the war in the Middle East. I have been looking and waiting for these arguments since forever. The Hitch delivered enough for me to sit back and cogitate on what he said. I am also reading Mark Lilla's book on political theology so I am keeping an open mind on the essential differences between theocratic imperatives as expressed by Ahamdinejad and those implied by the US via its stupid, short-sighted and theocratically blinded leader, commonly known, inter alia, as the Shrub.

It doesn't matter whether or not I agree or disagree with Hitchens' arguments for the continuation of the 'war' on terror in which the US is engaged. Hitchens' arguments are persuasive and that is the mark of a good debater. A bit like a tennis match really. One's eyes follow the ball that is being tossed between the combatants and (even though one may have a favourite) each rally and/or volley allows for an exclamation of appreciation for the way in which the ball is delivered.

This is how I see the Hitch. He is an excellent volleyer. He proposes arguments that give me pause and make me think. I have always been against this appalling war of attrition in the Middle East. However the Hitch has made me start to think from his side of the net and I don't find him wanting. The way in which he delivers his arguments for the theocratic dominance that faces the world is cogent. Hats off to him. He is the only one I have listened to who is able to express his reasons for his stance with any sort of logic, as distinct from hyperbolic rhetoric.

I will have to think further on this and also read Jan's The Ultimate Tragedy.

I have to say that I love his inability to suffer fools gladly:-). The expressions on his face were priceless. He really is fearless and I appreciate that with knobs on.

I have to agree with you Russell, I suspect we have a new troll. Don't feed him anyone. He will attempt to hijack this thread. Don't try to engage Riley in any meaningful debate. It will turn to mush and waste our time. We have seen it all before:-).

We should be getting good at recognising trolls. We have been here for quite some time. They are not that difficult to suss any more. Don't feed them. And thank you Russell for teaching me, months ago, how to recognise them:-). If you guys get sucked in, be it on your own head:-). Steve Zara I can see you, dear man:-). Addicted as always – I really love your posts, but I know you will be frustrated with this one:-).

I love the non-Quetz hour(s) of a good red.
V

139. God's honest truth?

Comment #79927 by Veronique on October 19, 2007 at 5:09 am

Yes!!

Here is RD's reply to the Guardian:

RichardDawkins
Comment No. 874811
October 19 11:38
GBR

I will limit myself to correcting errors of fact -- lies, not to put too fine a point on it.
1. Andrew Brown refers to "the Dawkins policy of prohibiting parents from trying to pass on their doctrines even in their own families". Needless to say, I neither have, nor ever would, advocate such a dictatorial policy. The article by me that Brown cites advocates CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING about the automatic LABELLING of children with the religion of their parents:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,625743,00.html
Labelling is importantly different from passing on doctrines, and consciousness-raising is importantly different from prohibiting. I, like many readers of this column, am in favour of raising consciousness about the discrimination implicit in a phrase like 'One man one vote'. But there is no law against using sexist language, nor should there be. It is in exactly that sense that I want to raise consciousness about the religious labelling of children. And it is in exactly that sense that I do NOT want the law to interfere in family life.
Andrew Brown usually takes some trouble to get his facts right, so I confidently expect that he will apologise, publicly, in this thread.
2. James Plaskett writes:
"When Richard Dawkins did descend from his ivory tower into a debate on Darwinism at an Oxford College in the 1990s, HE LOST."
That is a barefaced lie. I have only ever taken part in one debate on Darwinism in Oxford. That was at the Oxford Union on February 14th 1986 when, together with the late, great John Maynard Smith, I took on Edgar Andrews and A.E.Wilder-Smith. Maynard Smith and I did not lose, we won, by 198 votes to 115. You can hear a verbatim recording of the entire debate at
http://richarddawkins.net/article,721,1986-Oxford-Union-Debate,Richard-Dawkins-John-Maynard-Smith
Plaskett, unlike Brown, is a religious apologist who, it would seem, is happy to tell outright lies in the service of his religion. Unlike Brown, therefore, I do not expect Plaskett to apologise. But if he were a true Christian, he would.
Richard Dawkins

Hahaha. Good one RD. I am so pleased that you replied to Brown and that drip Plaskett:-)

You made my day
I now toast you in the non-Quetz hour:-)
V

140. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79917 by Veronique on October 19, 2007 at 3:08 am

598. Comment #79908 by steve zara

Hahaha. I know. I decided to leave this site and do something practical for a time. I lasted 5 or so days:-)

If you like I will supply the firm words...:-) if and when you falter.

Don't stop posting like I thought I would, for gravy's sake!! I love your posts. Just direct them more profitably:-)

My best
V

141. God's honest truth?

Comment #79914 by Veronique on October 19, 2007 at 3:00 am

74. Comment #79912 by Marie-Louise

Good on you:-)

Tell me what is your take on JemyM's posts earlier? I think I could probably learn quite a bit from you both. I think we all could:-)

Would you care to lay out some history and politics for me? I would be grateful. And you too Henri, you old adversary you:-)

Hope to hear from you
V

142. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79909 by Veronique on October 19, 2007 at 2:49 am

259. Comment #79900 by bluejway

I don't usually comment on posts like yours, but I join with Philip on this.

You say:

But there are many errors in what he says. Let me dig them up for you. Of course, you'll be shocked when you find that your HERO is wrong (in some places).

May I suggest you provide your arguments in a similar format to that used by Donald.

That would give us something more to talk about rather than responding to pretty angry and abusive rants from you.

Cheers
V

143. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79906 by Veronique on October 19, 2007 at 2:39 am

596. Comment #79903 by steve zara

I have been reading your later posts, saying this is the last one:-)

Dear man, you tried over and above the call. Let it go, you will never smash the mental 'force fields'. I have learned this. Don't waste your time and considerable effort. Don't trawl for minute possibilities of a breakthrough anymore.

Just post your well thought-out arguments for the rest of us to to learn from. Much more satisfying, really:-)

I learn from you, so do others. Let that suffice dear man.

An education well taken, I trust:-)

Cheers
V

144. God's honest truth?

Comment #79817 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Hahaha.

Goldy, Bonzai - I clicked an external link at the bottom of wiki's page on Richard Milton and was taken to a page that lists a debate between Richard Milton and Jim Foley.

Here's how the link described it:

The following debate on the evidence for human evolution took place in a small email discussion group.
Jim Foley is the author of the Fossil Hominids pages at the talk.origins web site.
Richard Milton is the author of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (1997). (He is an anti-evolutionist rather than a creationist, but his arguments are similar to those of many creationists.)

Nothing to do with Richard Dawkins (except that their first names are the same and their surnames are bi-syllabic). Now, I can't be sure that this is the debate that Plaskett mentions. I have posted him asking for a link to the debate he bangs on about. We'll see:-).

Mind you, RD's review in 1992 of Milton's book is scathing to say the least. So is Robert Todd Carroll's. No wonder Milton was miffed, but hey, that was 15 years ago. We have moved on.

Cheers
V

145. God's honest truth?

Comment #79812 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 3:27 pm

38. Comment #79804 by Bonzai

Thanks for the link. I'll make sure Quet's teapot is well out of reach:-) while I find this debate.

Cheers
V

146. God's honest truth?

Comment #79797 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 2:57 pm

28. Comment #79791 by Goldy

Do you where the debate between Dawkins and Milton in 1995 can be found? I clicked on Plaster's link, but don't trust the bias. I don't think it was Milton after all. He is just a journo. So now, I am not sure what debate Plaster is referring to. Bugger!

I have seen posts by WML before - he's not bad, is he:-)

Cheers
V

147. God's honest truth?

Comment #79788 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 2:14 pm

This is one of the comments posted in the Guardian:

JamesPlaskett
Comment No. 873731
October 18 19:59
ESP
I subscribe to no faith.
I do believe in God.
However, I could not care less whether or not anyone else does.
A Supreme Being could presumably do the arguing for Himself.
But, whilst we are touching upon the topic of indoctrination and of myth presented as fact, do not forget the actions of one R. Dawkins, Esq.
See here to see how the great rationalist and defender of free speech reacted when anyone had the temerity to point out the falsehoods in his own creation myth -
http://www.alternativescience.com/thes_and_richard_dawkins.htm
When Richard Dawkins did descend from his ivory tower into a debate on Darwinism at an Oxford College in the 1990s, HE LOST.
Which is why he never bothers to re-enter the debating arena these days.
He knows that he would just lose again.
Freedom of Speech is the very last thing for which Richard Dawkins stands.
He is only interested in people getting to hear his version.
And not the honest truth.

RD - I wonder whether you should address the virtual libel of this poster. And the gratuitous tripe that Andrew Brown inserted into his article.

V

148. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79620 by Veronique on October 18, 2007 at 1:17 am

69. Comment #79615 by Philip1978

Well, my little darling, we may have them on the run, but there are so many more of them than us. And they have money!. And a wide network and lots of dupes.

However I am heartened as are you:-). And Jack is right – it is a 'war'. Ha, I have found another one; she is older than I and has just borrowed Hitchens' book – yes!!

They are out there, we just have to keep talking and hopefully mobilise them. Tell you what Philip, I'll round up the oldies and you round up the youngies:-). Between us we should be able to cover both bases. Now we need the middle lot. Who's volunteering? We need the forties to fifties covered:-). Can I hear someone offering? Hope so.

BTW, it is 6.15pm here, non-Quetz tea hour. Time for a good red:-).
Cheers Philip,
V

149. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79569 by Veronique on October 17, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Rtambree and eXcommunicate

Hitchens did ask the audience to help by not letting McGrath off the hook. I was fully expecting the question to come from the floor.

But it didn't. Out of 800 odd people, you would have thought that someone asked a question designed to pin McGrath down.

Maybe there was such a question card and the moderator decided against putting it to McGrath.

I don't blame Hitchens entirely for that.

Cheers
V

150. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79523 by Veronique on October 17, 2007 at 2:20 pm

9. Comment #79427 by Ford Prefect

God can't do anything without believers money.

Reminds me of Carlin - He always needs MONEY… he just can't handle money…:-).

From the email:

Jesus said, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea" (Mark 9:42 NKJV).

.

Didn't McGrath say that god/jesus doesn't exhort anyone to do violence?:-). Sure Alistair, we believe you!

From the Coral Ridge Ministeries video:

They attack with violence and venom… and now the animosity of Hitchens and Dennett and Dawkins and Harris

(WTF??). We should send these guys The Ugly comment thread on this site if they think atheists are violent and venomous.

75% of our young people are falling victim to atheism (at college) and losing their faith.

There's hope yet:-).

To stop the attrition the church must start teaching apologetics and the Christian view of the world at a young age.

That's right! Indoctrinate the kiddies early and often.

Sheesh! More tea:-).
V