151. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76539 by Northern Bright on October 6, 2007 at 5:57 am

Oral Roberts is 89 and lives in California. He holds the title of chancellor, but the university describes him as semi-retired, and his son presides over day-to-day operations on the campus

I'm sure we all feel totally confident that the appointment of Richard Roberts to this role was on the basis of a scrupulously fair, open and transparent selection procedure, and that it's just the merest coincidence that he's Oral Roberts' son. Never let it be said that we atheists are cynical about the behaviour of fundamentalist Christians.

Cornell Cross II, a senior from Burlington, Vt., said he is looking to transfer to another school because the scandal has "severely devalued and hurt the reputation of my degree."

Now, I don't like to be mean - no, really, I don't ;-) - but it does strike me that, if young Cornell was really that concerned about the reputation of his degree, he should perhaps have chosen a different university in the first place? Just a thought.

PS. Richard Morgan - Love the hymn. A BIG improvement on the original!

152. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #75688 by Northern Bright on October 3, 2007 at 10:42 am

I did write to the headmaster at the centre of this story, and received a reply from him today, which I thought you might like to see. My letter first:

Dear Dr Kelley

I just wanted to write in total support of your admirable goal of achieving an entirely secular school, and to let you know that I shall also be writing to my MP, the Prime Minister and the national press in the same vein.

The purpose of schools should be to inculcate a love of knowledge, a search for truth, and the ability and desire to explore issues and think clearly and critically for oneself. It is utterly bizarre that they should be required by law to start such a journey with a daily dose of worship based on the antithesis of those values, a blind acceptance of the non-provable.

There may be good grounds for bringing the whole school together on a daily basis, but not to fill young people's heads with the notion that there are some things that should be accepted without evidence and without question.

Like you, I have no obection to the various religious beliefs being taught in lessons, though this should always be in an academic and comparative context, and not from the standpoint that one of them is to be preferred over the others or, indeed, that any of them must be true.

Congratulations on standing up and being counted, and for putting forward such an entirely sensible proposal in the first place. Culture change does not happen overnight, so I hope you will not be put off by the initial negative response from government: I would like to think that, if we all keep making the eminently sensible point that the promotion of religion is entirely at odds with the true purpose of education, in years to come secular schools will be the norm.

With all good wishes.

Yours sincerely
Paula Kirby

And now his reply:

Dear Ms Kirby

I would like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. It is, as you will realise, a little daunting to raise the issue of secular schools in a country that has had an established church for 400 years.

However, I have been heartened by your letter, and the intelligent and thoughtful comments you have made. I was not expecting the response to my suggestion would be so positive, but I have received many letters of support, as well as comments from colleagues.

I believe children do have the right to an education that is not promoting a single political or religious world view, and I will continue to do what I can to see that it is possible for children in this country.

All the best
Paul Kelley

And then a handwritten footnote: "Thank you for your comments and the advice - implicit though it is - to take a long term view. Hopefully things will change, as they should."

Nice to get a reply. More than can be said for my letters to my MP and the Prime Minister! (They're no doubt too busy trying to work out how to get my vote in the forthcoming "surprise" election - mmmm, think they may have blown that one!)

153. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75353 by Northern Bright on October 2, 2007 at 11:42 am

Any other good examples of his perfidy?

Well, don't quote me on this, but I heard he'd been seen in the Garden of Eden, pretending to be a woman and deep in conversation with a snake. Sounds plausible to me.

154. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75028 by Northern Bright on October 1, 2007 at 11:57 am

EDIT: Smacks head! Doh! Is this your way of accusing Dawkins of anti-semitism? That is a serious charge Nick.

I didn't read it like that, Corylus - I saw it more as him simply pointing out that he's not Jewish and therefore doesn't have an axe to grind on the issue.

155. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74808 by Northern Bright on September 30, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Always good to see people standing up against tyranny, whatever it is that motivates them. It's easy for us to be blasé about such things, when we live in countries where it's safe to protest. The Burmese regime has one of the worst human rights records going - I'm not sure I'd have the courage to take them on, so I admire anyone who does - whatever their reasons for doing so.

But let's not pretend that resistance only comes in religious forms. Aung San Suu Kyi has been doing it for years and has spent years under house arrest for her pains. She, too, is a Buddhist (most Burmese are), but her activism has very clearly been in the name of democracy, not Buddhism.

156. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74729 by Northern Bright on September 30, 2007 at 7:03 am

Here's another beauty for you, from his final chapter:

When you see Christians behaving in a way which would shame Satanists, when you see preachers being pompous, hypocritical [...], then it is enough to put you off Christianity for life.

Yup. Can't argue with that. "Hoisted by his own petard" again ;-)

157. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74727 by Northern Bright on September 30, 2007 at 6:24 am

I am continuing to read Wee Flea's book, The Dawkins Letters, and continuing to find page after page where he has shamelessly twisted and distorted what's in TGD, or has quite simply lied. As in this example:

The only argument I have heard atheists use is that, well, really, Stalin was not an atheist because he behaved unreasonably and unreasonable people cannot be atheists! It's the ultimate in circular arguments and there is no point in trying to break into the circle.

Maybe here would be a good place to quote what it REALLY says in TGD:

Stalin was probably an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't; but even if both were atheists, the bottom line of the Stalin/Hitler debating point is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism.

To be fair, maybe Wee Flea doesn't realise that RD is an atheist, and this is what legitimises his claim?

PS. And there was me thinking that "God exists because the bible says so, and the bible must be true because it's the word of God" was the ultimate in circular arguments. The difference is, people really do use this one.

158. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74704 by Northern Bright on September 30, 2007 at 3:19 am

Well, well, well, I go away for a few days, and it turns into the equivalent of a Kit-Kat advert round here! Do you remember the one I mean? The one where the photographer spends hours and hours waiting to glimpse a giant panda, only for 2 of them to emerge and perform an elaborate ice-dancing routine the moment he turns his back to take a break? :-)

There's very little to be added to answers you've all given to Wee Flea already. You've said it all, and beautifully too - especially _J_, who has more right than most of us to feel personally aggrieved by Wee Flea's abusive behaviour.

However, it does strike me that there are several Christians who are active on RD. net - Dianelos, of course, but also Biz, Revcort, Brother John, Fides et Ratio, Paul Emecz, Lane and others. Have you seen a single one of them EVER write approvingly or in support of Wee Flea's posts? No? No, nor have I. Why might that be, I wonder?

Could it be because, like us, they cringe at the majority of what he writes and are appalled at the sheer twisted nastiness that is evident in it? And because, however much they may share his RELIGION, they don't wish to be associated with HIM? Who could blame them, if so?

(By the way, have you ever seen Wee Flea engage with one of THEM, either? - either in support or to challenge them?)

Is there sometimes aggression, abuse, stupidity and nastiness from atheists on this website? Yes. What else would you expect on an open forum such as this, with thousands and thousands of contributions from hundreds of contributors? But anyone taking an honest look through it in search of warmth, compassion, humanity, wit, intelligence, thoughtfulness, a questioning spirit, a willingness to admit doubt and a willingness to engage with "the other side" would find those in abundance too - though not in Wee Flea's posts, that's for sure.

OK, Wee Flea, you've already demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that you can stoop to the depths of the worst of the behaviour you can find on this site. If you can equally demonstrate an ability to raise yourself to the best of it, it may be worth your checking back in at a later date. Otherwise, please don't bother. Since the only point you seem to want to make is that you feel nothing but contempt for atheists, and since you've already made that abundantly clear, it really would be a waste of your time and ours.

(As an aside can anyone tell me why this website has not done a serious review – apart from calling us all fleas – of the various books written in response to TGD?)

I happen to know that reviews of a number of these books are underway right now. No doubt Wee Flea will read them with his customary open-mindedness, sense of fairness, and interest in genuine discussion.

159. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74266 by Northern Bright on September 28, 2007 at 2:21 am

I really like the loving nature of Christianity...

It's Christianity's love of truth, honesty, sincerity, transparency and integrity that most appeals to me.

160. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74253 by Northern Bright on September 28, 2007 at 1:30 am

For sheer, twisted deviousness, you've just got to hand it to the fundies, haven't you.

161. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74153 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Somewhere in [The Dawkins Letters - by David Robertson] I've highlighted a paragraph that made me laugh out loud in the light of what we know of [Wee Flea] in here - I don't have it with me at the moment though, so I'll have to look it out later and post it then.

OK, I have the book in front of me now. Have only read the first half so far (I have the pleasure of the second half still to look forward to), but I invite you to enjoy these little gems in the light of his behaviour on this forum:

"Most of the arguments are of sixth-form schoolboy variety and shot through with a passionate anti-religious vehemence."

"It is propaganda - not truth, not reason, not debate and most certainly not fair."

"It hardly constitutes rational argument and discussion."

"Your view, that the universe is only physical, is a hypothesis and one that is largely based on wishful thinking."

"How would you feel if I took some of the more ludicrous and ignorant comments from some of the atheists on your website and used them as an example of how atheism rots the brain? It would not be fair or honest."

"I am sure you would recognise that whilst experience is an important factor it cannot be the determining factor in ascertaining what is objective truth."

"The trouble is that your ridicule, combined with an atheist fundamentalism and the bitterness and irrationality of some of your own supporters, leads to persecution and intolerance."

"I would suggest that biblical Christianity is the most tolerant and practical worldview that exists."

"We respect every human being because they are made in the image of God."

"But if you attack my family, my friends, my community I am offended because part of my identity is tied up with them. [...] My identity is bound up with the God of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ. Therefore, when you attack him, you are attacking me. So please don't patronise."

"When I read the Old Testament I find a wonderful God - a God of mercy, justice, beauty, holiness and love, a God who cares passionately for the poor, for his people and for his creation."

"Is it not the case that you are really aiming at a polemical and emotional response rather than a rational one?"

"It is a rhetorical device that does not actually deal with any of the issues involved."

"When someone tells me they do not believe in God I often ask them to tell me about the God they do not believe in. They will then come out with the kind of statement that you do at the beginning of the chapter and I will tell them that I do not believe in that God either."

"And the ad hominem examples you use of eccentric and unbalanced religious people are not what most Christians would identify with."

"It is your attack on a distorted and perverted version of Christian teaching about God which provides you with the most entertaining smokescreen for your lack of substantial argument on whether God exists in the first place or not."

"You argue for complete annihilation of the religious."

"Science can tell us nothing about the Rock of Ages - Jesus Christ."

"By the way, I am fascinated that you think that there is something to be said for treating Buddhism not as a religion but as an ethic or philosophy of life. Would you therefore accept the philosophy that says that handicapped people are born that way because they were bad in a previous life and they are just getting their karma?"

"Do you seriously think that the evidence for the God of the Bible is on the same level as the tooth fairy?"

"So how about dealing with the evidence that we assert and staying away from that which only states your own presupposition - that there is no God?"

"I live in a universe created by a personal God, the God of mercy, logic, justice, goodness, truth, beauty and love - the God whose purposes and intentions are good."

"Your attack on him in a footnote in this chapter [...] comes across as 'bitchy' "

"The hisorical evidence for the claims that Jesus made is quite clear. The Gospels make it explicit."

"The reason that we believe in God is because of the evidence, because of science (knowledge), because of what we see in the universe. [...] I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."

And finally, and rather beautifully: "Hoisted by your petard."

162. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74141 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 11:44 am

I really appreciate these sentiments Northern Bright. However, you don't really know me outside of this forum.

I accept that, Revcort, but for all that, you've revealed a lot about yourself (as we all do) in the course of your posts here.

You have accused yourself of blasphemy, you have blamed yourself for leading me into a "sin" when (even leaving the whole "sin" thing unchallenged for a moment) it should have been quite clear that you had done no such thing, you have referred to yourself as a "weak, pitiful fool", you have said "there is a literal hell", you have said "I have a very healthy fear of God, though I doubt I fear Him as much as I should." And so on and so forth.

You have said that 95% of what you read consists of the bible and theological writings. You have said you hardly ever even listen to music!

You say you encourage your students to think for themselves, but look again at what you've written:

I do not force my beliefs on the students that come to our church. I present the Scripture. I tell them what I think it says, by the grace of God. However, I always tell them to check for themselves, to not take things as true just because I said it, and to own their own faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reads very much to me as if your "encouraging your students to think for themselves" consists in your referring them to the bible to check that what you've said is really written there. The underlying claim that, if it's in the bible, it's true, is reinforced, not challenged, by this course of action. This is not a HUGE breakthrough for freedom of thought, Revcort.

You cannot post as you have posted in here over these last few days and then ask to be taken for a healthy, balanced, well-adjusted individual. Despite what you claim, much of what you have written - the most hell-fixated bits - would be rejected by very many churches around the world (although not, I grant you, in certain areas of the US).

It is impossible to hold the view of God that you hold and truly love him. You'll deny that, and maybe be offended by it, but it is true: God as you paint him is singularly UNlovable. You can fear him. You can hate him. You can despise him. You can submit to him. You can obey him. But you cannot love him, anymore than you could love a human who claimed to love you but claimed they'd have no choice but to set fire to you if you don't love them back. You are distorting language, you are distorting meaning and you are distorting sanity by dignifying such a relationship with the word "love".

There is nothing you can say or do that could make me aspire to your kind of faith in a million years. I feel angry that you are planting this kind of self-loathing in young people's heads, but even more than that, I feel sorry for you, I really do. It's a terrible way to go through life and I sincerely hope that one day you see it for the monstrous nonsense it really is and reject it. And that you then find some way of undoing the damage you've done to your "students" over the years.

163. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74124 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 10:17 am

I was particularly upset with myself for posting Bunyan's description of the unpardonable sin, and by doing so, may have enticed some of you to commit it. This thought has not left my mind since I read Northern Bright's response.

Don't be daft, Revcort. I decided years ago that I didn't believe in all that stuff, and I've been saying so openly ever since.

Truly - your quotes, whether from the bible or John Bunyan, have no effect on us whatsoever. We simply cannot be swayed - either for you or against you - by quotes. I realise that's hard for you to understand, given that you spend so much of your life reading that kind of thing, but it really does leave us cold. A quote - whoever it's from - can no more convert me to atheism (even if I weren't already an atheist!) than it can convert me to Christianity. I have already reached my own conclusions on the question and it will take EVIDENCE, not opinion, to persuade me to change them.

I wrote nothing last night that hasn't been true for a long time or that I hadn't expressed openly many times before. I - not you, not John Bunyan, not St Paul, not even Richard Dawkins (!) - decide what I believe and what I don't.

I would like to echo what everyone else has been saying to you today: it is not healthy to roll in guilt like this. It is not healthy to obsess about sin and hell and divine wrath. It is not healthy to allow your entire brain to be invaded and colonised by these thoughts.

I worry about you, Revcort - you are so focused on "the life to come" that you're not living this one with all the joy and openness and freedom that it should be lived with. You're so busy beating yourself up for being a "weak, pitiful fool" that you can't be free to be stronger or less pitiful.

Like everyone else (unless they're damaged in some way), you have the capacity to be a wonderful, warm, loving, generous, caring, whole, healthy, positive, sane, balanced, vibrant, radiant person, and to live life to the full.

Instead, you're in thrall to an imaginary being who tells you you're sinful and bad and undeserving and unworthy and a miserable wretch. It's just plain wrong, Revcort. You're not any of those things.

And don't misunderstand me - accepting yourself, for better, for worse, is NOT the same as being complacent or smug or self-satisfied. It's just applying the same standard of loving tolerance that you advocate towards others, to yourself.

No one should spend their lives constrained by the fears that haunt you. It blights your life, it blights your interactions with other people and it blights the lives of those children and young people you drum it into.

Life - real life - is not as scary as you think. But it is short - for everyone's sake, PLEASE stop wasting it. There is SO MUCH MORE to life than you are experiencing. And I'm not talking about sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Just life as an ordinary, fallible, mostly lovable human being. Is that really such a terrible thing to be?

164. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74061 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 6:14 am

Northern Bright : I suspect that many of us manifest different aspects of our personalities according to the context.

Yes, fair comment, Richard Morgan, but there's a difference between different aspects of our personalities, and different personalities altogether. It's possible to show different aspects of our personalities, without becoming unrecognisable in the process.

Different people and contexts certainly bring out different aspects of us, but if those aspects are mutually incompatible - as (to pluck an example out of the air and entirely at random) in the case of a hypothetical clergyman who regularly preaches love, forgiveness, meekness, mildness, consideration, humility, contrition and compassion in one context, only to regularly morph into a venomous, spiteful, word-twisting, hate-filled, devious, thoroughly nasty individual in another - then I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that there's something very odd going on.

165. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74039 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 5:40 am

Brother John, I liked your post too, so thank you for that.

I'm sure no one here will disagree with you fundamentally on the importance of acting in accordance with our conscience, or even on what constitutes "moral" behaviour. And there's no reason why we SHOULD disagree with you - after all, our disagreement isn't on what constitutes morality in its broadest sense, but on whether or not there's a god. They're two different questions!

It is unfortunate that many Christians (and I'm not accusing you of being one of them) assume that morality MUST come from their God, and that, consequently, anyone who rejects Christianity is equally rejecting the need for any constraints on their behaviour. As others here have pointed out, conscience and a sense of morality can be explained naturalistically, without recourse to a god. And the fact that the majority of atheists live perfectly decent, moral, law-abiding lives without descending into anarchic maniacs gives the lie to the idea that a society without religion must inevitably have dire consequences.

Thanks again for your calm, sensible, measured, balanced and fair post, Brother John.

166. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74027 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 5:04 am

In a way I kind of hope he does

Oh, he already has, BillySands. He's got abusive comments from atheists on this site intermingled with flattering ones from non-atheists on the cover of his book. It's quite amusing, actually - the wittiest thing I've ever seen him come out with. But no, what he doesn't reveal is the sort of behaviour he engages in on this forum, which could have been - and probably has been - specifically designed with a view to eliciting those kinds of responses.

Somewhere in the book I've highlighted a paragraph that made me laugh out loud in the light of what we know of him in here - I don't have it with me at the moment though, so I'll have to look it out later and post it then.

167. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73971 by Northern Bright on September 27, 2007 at 12:52 am

Tell you what, Wee Flea, you start properly engaging with the points that are put to you, THEN start accusing others of avoidance. If you had genuinely wished to enter into real discussion and debate on the subject of religion, my post would have given you the opportunity to do so. Yet you chose to respond as you did. Consequence: this atheist, who was prepared to enter into a discussion with you, now thinks you're a pratt, and a pretty devious pratt at that. Is that the result you were aiming for?

My point about you being a poor advertisement for Christianity is a genuine one. I note you haven't addressed it. The implication of my comment wasn't that you can't be a Christian because you're not nice and you don't fight fair - I would be surprised if many of us here subscribed to that as a definition of "Christian". My point is that your behaviour reflects badly on the ideology you represent and which you claim to be so superior. Suppose your god really did exist and really was watching and judging everything you did? Would you really want him to scrutinise your antics in here too closely? Would he approve of your methods, do you suppose?

What exactly are you trying to achieve in here, I wonder? Clearly not debate - you refuse all invitations from us to actually HAVE a debate, normally by resorting to the claim that we're not actually up for it. Clearly not conversion - who could look at the behaviour and attitudes you exhibit in here and find them remotely attractive?

I suspect that you have 2 purposes for being in here:

1. to goad us into the very reactions that you then delight in mocking as the typical behaviour of atheists. SO handy for dropping into future books and articles, aren't they?

and

2. with an eye on any Christians, possibly doubting Christians, who may be lurking in here - to engage in a bit of morale-boosting swashbuckling cartoon-like action. "There's only one way to deal with atheists, lads! Take that! Biff! Bash! Wallop!" No doubt very appealing if you happen to be drawn to that sort of thing.

Truly, Wee Flea, in the unlikely event that I ever find myself feeling remotely drawn to returning to Christianity, I shall think of you in the full expectation of an instant cure.

168. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73893 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 2:09 pm

I thought I would post that so that some here might be able to examine themselves to see if you have indeed committed that sin.

Yes! I have! I absolutely do not believe in "the gospel of remission of sins by Jesus Christ" and have no problem whatsoever with saying so publicly. I don't believe in your concept of "sin", I don't believe in your concept of "forgiveness", I don't believe in your concept of "atonement" and I don't believe in your concept of "hell". I don't believe in your bible. Quote it all you like, Revcort - I don't BELIEVE it. And you've admitted yourself that you can't prove any of it's true, so I really have to ask myself what on earth you think you're going to achieve here?

169. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73863 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 11:45 am

77. Comment #73807 by Suffolk Blue on September 26, 2007 at 8:30 am

Well, this is a remarkably light-hearted thread. Often gets a bit too earnest for me in here.

Still standing by this comment, Suffolk Blue? ;-)

170. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73857 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 11:23 am

OK - what's your PROOF of God's existence Wea Flea.

Oh, he's got lots of proof, irate_atheist. It's just that he, er, doesn't want to share it with us. But you may be sure that the fact there isn't an elephant in my fridge clinches the matter. Or something like that.

171. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73849 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 10:48 am

But then Northern Bright never specified the size of this invisible elephant did she?

Or her fridge, come to that!

To make the analogy more apt, though, this would have to be an elephant who could defy normal physical processes, suspend physical laws, that sort of thing. This would have to be an elephant who didn't break shelves, squash vegetables or leave footprints in the butter. After all, aren't we continually told by the religious lobby that their god isn't constrained by the laws of science?

Mind you, the elephant may really be there. Certainly SOMETHING'S been eating my chocolate, and it wasn't me ... Or, if it was, I'm not admitting it.

172. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73842 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 10:20 am

Which kind of blows the rest of your argument. Still doubtless J and others will continue to regard this as brilliant logic because one of the sweeter rules of atheist fundamentalism is that one must not disagree with ones fellow believers in public.

Ah Wee Flea. You have confirmed what I have long suspected from reading your other posts - that you are not really interested in discussion or hearing different points of view: attempts at point-scoring are more your style.

It's interesting. I'm reading your book at the moment and although, as you would expect, I'm not agreeing with the arguments you make in it, I have noticed that you come across there quite differently from the persona you adopt here. There you make an attempt to sound quite reasonable. I think a lot of your readers would be surprised to see your antics on this website. Do they really reflect you - or the religion you claim to represent - at their best, do you think? Would anyone encountering Christianity for the first time and encountering it in the person of Wee Flea be inclined to see it as a religion that promotes love, peace, harmony, forgiveness, and all those other supposedly "Christian" values? Would they be attracted to it, do you suppose?

And which is the real David Robertson, I wonder? The one who hides behind a reasonable veneer when trying to impress? Or the one who vents his spleen in here?

You do your cause no favours if you refuse to engage in sensible discussion about it, and simply come in here to goad. You may like to put it down to our refusal to listen to theists. But someone else has already pointed out the difference in the way another theist is being received on a different thread. Same audience: different response. But I guess it's too much to expect you to reflect on that and see if there's something you could learn from it. So much for Christian humility, eh? Never mind, I expect Jesus is proud of you anyway.

173. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73817 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 9:03 am

Oh my goodness, how very Jane Austen. Well, if there's going to be a duel, do I at least get to watch?

I myself have found it effective more often than not to compliment a woman on her mental acumen. As I pointed out, the most effective compliments are those which the mark has received the least of.

It took me a little while to work out what this reminded me of, but then it came back to me - that lovely scene in Pride and Prejudice when Mr Collins is having his first dinner with the family and regales them with how he butters up Lady Catherine de Burgh and her daugher:

I am happy on every occasion to
offer those little delicate compliments which are always acceptable to ladies.

Sorry, though, guys - I'm more of a Mr Darcy girl myself.

(if we can believe from the limited information available that she truly is a she, and not one of those all-too-common female impersonators on the Web...)

No, really, I DO exist and I AM a she! It has been independently verified, I'm telling you. Good grief, it's a good thing I don't suffer from existential angst!

Prepare to be contested over, Ms. Northern Bright.

Oh, please, don't stand on ceremony. Do call me Northern. [Flutters eyelashes and reaches for smelling salts.]

174. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73783 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 7:31 am

Northern Bright? ... she might not even exist for all I know!

Oh dear. If you find out, can you let me know please? The suspense is killing.

175. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #73764 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 5:32 am

Wee Flea:

How is atheism a faith? Because you believe something based on your presuppostions which are themselves unproveable. In the fundamentalist version of your faith you refuse to listen to any other point of view.

The presuppositions that you refer to presumably being that there is nothing beyond the material world? That certainly IS unproveable, of course.

Does that make adherence to that view a matter of faith, though? To borrow an example that I seem to recall Julian Baggini using in his Very Short Introduction to Atheism, I can't PROVE that there isn't an elephant in my fridge who becomes invisible every time I open the fridge door.

Nevertheless, believing that there ISN'T such an elephant is a very different order of belief from believing that there IS, AND arranging my life in such a way as to incorporate that view into every aspect of it, worshipping that elephant, loving that elephant, avoiding causing that elephant more grief than I can help, praying to that elephant and generally viewing it as central to my life.

You might argue that, by not believing in that elephant and therefore living my life as if it doesn't exist, I'm equally basing my stance on something unproven. But sheer economy demands that we don't indulge in expensive rituals celebrating all the things that can't be proved -such evidence as we have points to there being no such elephant. NOT believing in it therefore does not require us to go beyond what it is reasonable to believe; whereas BELIEVING in it DOES require us to believe something for which there is no real evidence. In my book, that makes the BELIEF position, not the non-belief position, a matter of faith.

As for being fundamentalist, I'm not sure that being unmoved by the arguments to date is the same as not being willing to listen to them. Don't forget that many of us have been Christians and are therefore already very familiar with the arguments that tend to be offered by theists here - if we occasionally seem unwilling to listen to them again now, it's because we've already given them house-room and have found them ultimately lacking. (If you were recruiting someone and had already rejected a particular candidate after the first interview, you wouldn't go back and interview them again and again and again just in case they were better this time, would you? In our case, the analogy is a stage further than that: if you had sacked someone for incompetence and dishonesty, would you seriously consider employing them again?)

It is true that there are many of us on this forum - and I am one of them - who will remain forever unswayed by reference to biblical authority or personal experience. The reasons for that have been spelled out often enough for them to need no further repetition from me, but hey, I probably can't resist so here goes: biblical reference only works if you've already bought into the concept NOT ONLY that there is a God, but that he chooses the Bible (as opposed to the Koran, say, or the Guinness Book of Records) to communicate with us; and personal experience isn't reliable evidence because it can be explained by reference to so many natural, psychological, emotional, pathological etc etc causes that to see it as proof of the supernatural is just too extravagant.

Does that mean we're not open to any kind of argument for the existence of God? I don't think it does, but it does mean that the arguments are going to have to be grounded in something less subjective than the ones that are usually offered. I grant you, I find it difficult to imagine what might really make me change my mind about the non-existence of God: well, short of the obvious things like the Rapture happening before my very eyes.

Part of the problem is that you're not just trying to persuade us of one unprovable proposition, but two: first, that there is a god at ALL, secondly, that it's the one you believe in. When you argue from biblical authority, or from personal experience, you're arguing from the second of those propositions, whilst we're still right there on the first one: as we've said elsewhere: FIRST show there's a god at all, THEN we can discuss whether it's Christianity or Islam or Jainism or Pastafarianism that offers the best approach to worshipping it.

176. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73736 by Northern Bright on September 26, 2007 at 3:04 am

Anyone else struck by the irony of this meltdown happening on a thread that's ostensibly about MUSLIMS being self-destructive!!

As I see it, the internet and this forum are big enough for everyone. When you start sharing your views with a community as large and as opinionated as this one, it's going to get heated sometimes.

Dr Benway's approach to netiquette seems admirable to me. Nothing wrong with heated argument - but let's keep SOME sense of proportion, eh? It's not reasonable to take part in a forum like this and expect to find all the posts and all the posters to our taste. What was that splendid comment by Carol Sarler recently? -

Secular sense is there to remind us that nobody, ever, has the right not to be offended. God-given or otherwise.

Richard M, we already know you can be a bloody-minded old bugger - no need to be a daft old bugger too. Self-imposed exile seems a bit OTT to me. Anyway, it smacks too much of martyrdom to impress a bunch of atheists, doesn't it?

And if that sounds too "head girl-y" for your tastes, RM - tough! :-)

177. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #73611 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Has anyone read any of these books yet? -

I'm just wondering how many times the word "shrill" appears in reference to the prof's arguments.

I've read Darwin's Angel and am halfway through The Dawkins Letters. Have The Dawkins Delusion and Deluded by Dawkins? waiting for me after that as a special treat.

So far The Dawkins Letters is much better than Darwin's Angel, but then, Darwin's Angel is such a phenomenally bad book. You do at least get a sense of what David Robertson believes from his book - Cornwell may well believe that Jupiter is overrun with hedgehogs for all the sense he makes.

How often does the word "shrill" appear? Often enough to be almost comical. Except that I get the feeling they didn't really want to write "shrill" - what they were aiming to convey was more like "SHRILL!!!!!

178. Keeping the faith at school

Comment #73515 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 7:02 am

PS can someone remind me how to include block quotes?

Easy.

You type: <
then: blockquote
then: >
Then you write your text.
Then you type: <
then: /blockquote
then: >

If you click "preview" before "submit", you'll be able to check that it's worked.

179. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73498 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 5:44 am

Creed? I just looked at the Nicene Creed and wondered how I would adapt it to reflect my beliefs. This is what I came up with:

I believe in no god or gods, or supernatural phenomena of any kind. I believe that the heavens and the earth, the whole universe, arose from natural causes, which may one day be known to science in their entirety, but that, even if they remain forever a mystery to us, will still have a natural explanation all the same.

I believe that no one is born except by natural means, and that no living creature can be sensibly deemed "divine". I believe that phrases like "God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God" are meaningless, and are employed only in order to blind people with poetry.

I believe that, whilst being crucified would indeed cause appalling suffering, no one who had died in that – or any other – manner could return from the dead afterwards. I believe that all "scriptures" are the product of human hands and human minds and human attempts to understand the world around them. I believe that nothing becomes true simply by virtue of being written down. I believe this, even when it was written down a long time ago.

I believe that all living things die, and that there is no life after death. I believe this makes every second of life more precious, more valuable, more important. I believe in living as much as possible without fear, without superstition, without unfounded guilt. I believe in accepting that people – all people, including me! – are a product of their genes, their culture, their upbringing, their education and their experiences and I accept that this variety of influences will result in each person embodying a mixture of qualities, both helpful and unhelpful, likeable and unlikeable, admirable and less admirable.

I believe in learning. I believe in wonder. I believe in awe. I believe in laughter and I believe in fun. I believe in respecting the Earth and all that lives on it for the very reason that nothing is eternal and there is no god to undo any harm that we do. I believe that religious belief, whilst harmless in some people, is harmful in others and that believing in the supernatural and looking to the life to come is a poor and wasteful substitute for living this life, this glorious, exciting, challenging, demanding life – the only life we know we have – to the full.

180. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73479 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 4:32 am

What about eternity with Revcort? Did you not read his comments??

I read his comments and felt as if I already HAD spent eternity with him ;-)

181. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73459 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 3:00 am

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/trolling_faithheads_your_effor.php

Anyone else seen and enjoyed this?

182. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73435 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 2:11 am

Did I read once that you are in Alberta?

No - Scotland!

You're a fundamentalist atheist and claim not to be shrill?! Ha! Just goes to show that you atheists have no sense of truth. First you deny that the universe was created three weeks ago last Thursday, and then you deny being shrill. If that doesn't prove that God exists, I don't know what does.

183. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73426 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 1:59 am

Did I come across shrilly?

Are you an atheist? Then yes, you did.
If not, then may I just say how much I enjoyed your dulcet tones.

184. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73425 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 1:56 am

Isn't this iDOLLatry?
(Sorry!)

Actually, I think I might buy one of these. Imagine how cool it would be to have your very own water-into-wine converter.

185. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73422 by Northern Bright on September 25, 2007 at 1:51 am

"Please, pretty please with sugar and cream, some of us think, although Galactor's not shouting or anything, that you might be a little bit wrong (I'm not saying deluded or anything like that) about this God thing and that your maintaining this erm, fallacy, might, just might, lend credence to the manifestly extreme section of the religious that might, just might, lead to the destruction of the world if they get their way with say a nuclear bomb. Would you mind having a little think about it, you know, from say a rational starting point and seeing if you couldn't see your way to, well, er, examining whether or not there's anything in the way of, er, how do we put this, erm, truth in the whole idea?"

See? Shrill through and through. Arrogant. Fundamentalist. You clearly have fascist, totalitarian leanings, Galactor, and are a threat to humanity. You do realise that your approach can only lead to more gulags? But that's the trouble with you atheists. You LIKE the idea of gulags. You have no understanding of love or goodness or moderation or tolerance. Well, you'll pay for it in HELL one of these days, ha ha ha, then you'll see that we were right about God being all-loving and merciful all along. Can't stop to write more now - I have children to indoctrinate, tracts to post through doors and liberals to denounce. So much to do, so little time before the Rapture. Amen. Hallelujah. Praise the Lord. But do try to be less SHRILL, you guys.

186. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73257 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 3:15 pm

"The penis, what is the function of the penis.
Amanda your a slag. This should be easyfor you"

No wonder you enjoyed his lessons ... and haven't forgotten them! :-)

187. A problem for Israel's farmers: The seven-year hitch

Comment #73256 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 3:11 pm

This may sound like literal-minded sophistry. But in fact it has a long and honourable tradition behind it

You've got to laugh, haven't you? The tricks the religious get up to. I used to know a fundie Christian (a former Minister, no less!) who was scandalised at the thought of hanging washing out on a fine Sunday afternoon, but regularly used to work at his PC on Sunday evenings, preparing for the week ahead.

His excuse? According to the bible, the Sabbath runs from sundown to sundown, not midnight to midnight. So did this mean that he started strictly observing the Sabbath at sunset on Saturday? I don't need to answer that one, do I? A cynic might suggest that the real difference between hanging the washing out and working at his PC was that no one could see him working at his PC...

188. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73249 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 2:57 pm

PS Northern Bright - that must be an old photo.

No! Well, not very, anyway. My mother was regularly assumed to be in her 50s until she was nearly 80. Genes are wonderful things! :-)

Anyway, enough of that. I had 4 different teachers of science at school - 2 different ones for biology, and one each for physics and chemistry. Not one of them was remotely inspiring. Well, one of them was ok-ish, but sadly we only had her for a couple of years.

I can't remember a single "wow" moment from science at school. Though some of my old schoolfriends can, at my expense: when our biology teacher had explained the "facts of life" and then went on to explain contraception, innocent little me was very puzzled and raised her hand to ask why people would have sex if they didn't want a baby. The teacher's response HAS lingered in my memory: desperately trying not to laugh (and nearly drowned out by the roars of laughter coming from my class mates), she somehow managed to stutter, "Well, SOME people quite enjoy it."

189. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73236 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 2:31 pm

But I guess you're young and so have a lot to look forward to in life, I hope you make the most of it and get as much as you can from it.

Oh Yorker, what a smooth talker you are. But I'm not complaining. We 43 year olds must take our compliments where we can find them! :-)

190. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73189 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 11:45 am

Lovely stuff. Familiar now from A Devil's Chaplain and Unweaving the Rainbow (and the other books I haven't yet read, no doubt), but it's a message I could listen to over and over again.

When I listen to RD speak like this, or read his books, I find it incredible that science at school could have seemed so dull. Was it really so badly taught, or did I just approach it with the wrong attitude? No way of knowing now. I'm just glad - and very grateful - that I discovered Richard Dawkins and have been able to start making up for lost time! :-)

191. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73174 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 10:54 am

And well done to him, as it [Unweaving the Rainbow]is excellent.

I agree, _J_. I suspect that, in some ways, it has the potential to win over even more people than TGD.

192. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #73167 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 10:30 am

"Either overtly or by default, this country is still a Christian one."

Does he actually mean: 'Either overtly or by default this country is homophobic, superstitious and opposed to scientific reason'

Quite possibly, irate_atheist, though I translated it as:

"Whether most people in this country believe in Christianity or not, we get lots of privileges by perpetuating the myth that they do, so you won't catch us admitting otherwise in a hurry."

193. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73110 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 6:27 am

(Northern Bright - you have been warned! This is the guy you flirt with, right?)

Wrong.

194. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #73109 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 6:23 am

But, if as stated it's "politically impossible" then the school just needs to offer alternatives.

I don't believe it really would be "politically impossible" - I think we should challenge that claim very vociferously. My suspicion is that Education Dept officials simply THINK it would be and therefore don't want to rock the boat.

As I understand it, the law as it stands doesn't permit schools to offer alternatives; not unless parents have specifically withdrawn their children from assemblies.

Schools should be about teaching children to seek knowledge, to ask questions and to challenge and analyse information critically. I can't imagine anything more glaringly at odds with that goal than starting each day with an act of worship of a supernatural being whose existence has to be just taken on trust.

It's a crazy world.

195. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #73104 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 6:06 am

That got 10 out of 10 on the made my eyes water scale

Yes, for me too. It's ages since I'd seen Rowan Atkinson - I'd almost forgotten how funny he is.

196. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73090 by Northern Bright on September 24, 2007 at 5:01 am

What a fantastic essay - well reasoned, clearly expressed, challenging, and inspiring too. Best thing I've read for ages.

197. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72901 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 11:28 am

For anyone wanting to write to The Guardian about this, the email address is

letters@guardian.co.uk

EDIT: Actually, the article seems to have been in The Observer, not the Guardian - they use the same url, which can be confusing. So the email address is

letters@observer.co.uk

198. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72857 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

A significant minority might object however, and when they do the apathetic majority might begin to tune into why.

Yes, good point. I'm all for fighting for what you believe in. It's too easy to assume it won't make any difference and therefore not to bother. But if no one bothers, then there's no reason for anything to change, is there?

199. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72848 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 8:28 am

His address is:-

Excellent. Thank you!

200. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72846 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 8:24 am

Maybe so, but I suspect that the vast majority of parents are completely unaware that collective worship is actually mandated in schools.

You may be right, d4m14n, but do you suppose that the majority of them would also object?

Someone (a non-Christian) was telling me the other day that the school his 8-year old son attends is "quite into God". The father's view was that this was ok, because it was giving his son a moral education. He was quite comfortable with my comment that you don't need religion for morality - but this was how morality was being presented in his son's school, and of itself that didn't worry him.

Interestingly, he also added that he didn't want his son to feel out of place in the school, so he didn't want to say anything that might lead to his son challenging the prevailing religious ethos.

Consequently, when his son had asked him recently where he had been before he was born, this person had decided to reply, "In God's pocket".

Remember, this is not a religious believer and not someone who particularly wants his children to grow up being actively Christian. He chose this answer a) because it was in keeping with the sorts of things his son was being taught at school and so wouldn't set him at odds with that and b) because he thought that would be easier for an 8-year old to handle than the truth.

Daniel Dennett really hit on something when he coined the phrase "belief in belief", didn't he? I can't for the life of me see why an 8-year old who is thinking about things seriously enough to ask such a very interesting question should be fobbed off with a purely fictional answer. Why should someone with no personal belief and no vested interest in promoting religion resort to such a reply? I didn't have time to go into it properly at the time the conversation took place, but it's a topic I'm looking forward to coming back to with this person when I get chance.

It adds another dimension to this topic, though, doesn't it. When a school creates a religious ethos, it also creates a pressure to conform to it. Amongst the children attending compulsory daily worship will be a) those whose parents wholeheartedly approve, b) those whose parents haven't fully appreciated that a sense of morality can be inculcated without a side serving of religious brainwashing and c) those whose parents would prefer it not to be happening but don't want to rock the boat.

If abandoning the daily act of worship seems like a step too far for our timid politicians, a good start would be to make it something that had to be actively opted in to, rather than opted out of. It would be interesting to see what emerged from that, wouldn't it?