151. 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

152. 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

153. 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

154. 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

155. 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.

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).

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

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

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

156. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79505 by Veronique on October 17, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Don't feed fides. The first time we meet him on these threads, we took him seriously enough to try and engage him in a rational debate.

It didn't work and we gave up after dozens of posts.

He throws in a teaser and is delighted if anyone picks it up. He is a highjacker of comment threads and wastes everyone's time and energy.

Talk about him if you have to, not to him, unless it's to tell him to go away. Best to resist the temptation altogether.

Good morning all, time for a cuppa
V

157. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79338 by Veronique on October 17, 2007 at 1:37 am

123. Comment #79329 by HughCaldwell

Thanks for your link:-).

From the Swansea review:

Rowan Williams was born in Swansea, the son of a mining engineer. He spent his early years in Ystradgynlais and Cardiff before his Welsh-speaking family moved to the Mumbles. He was educated at Dynevor Secondary School in the city centre.

158. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #79327 by Veronique on October 17, 2007 at 12:36 am

43. Comment #79322 by Teratornis

What a beautifully revealing (deliberately so) post. I am finding that I like your posts more and more:-).

I had never been subject to any political and/or religious upbringing. So, obviously, I hadn't any need to combat either political or religious ideology. I grew up pretty much free except for cultural imperatives that are unavoidable.

Over the years I have been involved, emotionally (especially when young) in various 'movements'. I have said before that you made sure you built a successful escape route from which you cannot be extricated. Well done.

This is just a thank you to you. You give me hope:-).

Cheers
V

159. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79321 by Veronique on October 16, 2007 at 11:26 pm

The Hitch is an excellent debater. I wouldn't compare RD and Hitch. RD is a teacher, Hitch is a street fighter.

This is exactly what is needed. Increase the base of abilities and methods. This is why we need to support all of them. RD, CH, RRS, SH, DD etc.

Poor old McGrath, he didn't stand a chance. Someone on this thread said afternoon tea and cucumber sandwiches:-). Great description! What amazed me was that he allowed himself to be flown out to the US for this event. He must be deluded indeed!

You know, all that was needed was another 15 minutes. McGrath was only just starting to lose it by the end. A bit more time and I think we would have seen a different demeanour emerging.

I say it again, I do not believe McGrath was ever an atheist. He may have toyed boyishly with the left, Marxism and atheism as an undergrad. But he went back to the god of his fathers, from whom he briefly rebelled.

No one can turn his back on rationalism, humanity, reason and science if he truly understands the basis for evidenced truth. McGrath uses this atheist ploy of his to 'try' to prove that he knows the question 'from both sides now'. I submit that is bullshit.

McGrath is the worst kind of bullshitter – he keeps retreating back into his ivory tower and attempting to argue from a plinth whose base is crumbling. He is much more intolerable than any fundamentalist.

He sees with eyes that are peculiar to his 'class'. He has no idea about the real world where people live and die in poverty, disease and hunger, calling on an imaginary god to help them – help that just doesn't arrive. Well-being indeed! What a crock in the areas of the world that he fails to include.

His type of theologian keeps breeding the bullshit. Childlike? Not on your nelly. Deceiver and bad actor – yes. Give me Richard Harries any day.

And Logicel is right. The verbal delivery is intimately tied to body language. The Hitch uses it well; on go the glasses, a quick glance to his notes – his aide de memoire, off come the glasses, held in hand, quick parry and thrust. Great fun. And pithy asides:-).

McGrath's prancing, raised eyebrows, hands upturned in pleading, wide-open eyes, faith incarnate, leaves me cold. He can't deliver jokes and shouldn't bother. At least he didn't hold his head on one side and look quizzical as he did in the ROAE interview with RD. Maybe the lectern suits him as well as it suits Hitch.

I loved the review posted by Thor, post 16. I could feel the mood of the audience from watching the debate. By comparison, J. Salmon's review was idiotic. I'll bet that she was the journo sitting on the right of Thacker, frowning as he took notes of various points:-).

Great to hear the Hitch go off; he is very good at this. McGrath? Couldn't hold a candle.

Cheers
V

160. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #78765 by Veronique on October 14, 2007 at 7:33 pm

48. Comment #78758 by Mr Embiggen

Try Bill Bailey. Oh and Rowan Atkinson. Both on youtube.

Cheers
V

161. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78762 by Veronique on October 14, 2007 at 7:05 pm

7. Comment #78754 by Converse02

I think it highly likely that translations will hit the market fairly soon. I would be prepared to bet that RD and others will be pushing for such translations to be made.

Deschner will be in the spotlight for a while now that RD has won this prize. I don't know what sort of money is attached to this prize, but prizes are usually funded by trusts in perpetuity. Trusts can always do with more money.

How's that for a rationalisation for english translations that we would all like to see:-)haha.
Edited
Cheers
V

162. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78753 by Veronique on October 14, 2007 at 6:15 pm

I add my congratulations to the others here. What a wonderful prize to be awarded. Like you PGFM, I am heartened that there are prizes like this one.

I read the wiki article on Deschner. What a marvellous life he has led. RD is a natural to be awarded this prize.

The more public recognition that is given to RD, the more he will come to be seen as someone who stands far taller than any archbish or pope.

I particularly liked his comment that religions are masters of the hijacker's art. Indeed they are. All of them. Every last one of them.

Cheers
V

163. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78642 by Veronique on October 14, 2007 at 2:55 am

Unless anyone wants to call Ayaan Hirsi Ali a liar, I think that I heard her say that there is no way to argue rationally with Islamists. She may be a Somali, not an Iraqi; she may have been a Sunni not a Shia, but her words, to me, brook no argument that Islam is dangerous, proselytising and adamant in its vision for a theocratically dominated world.

Her Q&A segment on this site left me in no doubt that Islam is ultimately not an ameliorator with regard to other ways of thinking and/or believing. There will be Islamic apologists as there are Xtian apologists, as this letter tried (apparently) to be. The unvarnished truth is that the belief in Muhammad as the prophet of Allah, allows for no deviation from his teachings (as inspired by God). And those teachings justify the killing of apostates unless they convert to Islam.

I think the biggest problem, is that we, here, are prepared to discuss and argue points of belief, scientific theories and their evidence and order, whatever that might mean at any particular time or circumstance.

An Islamist cannot do this; he cannot indulge in any sort of intellectual questioning of either belief or compromise with others' beliefs.

This should give us pause. The irrationality of fides, Biz, Dianelos, PaulEmecz, the Flea and others who couldn't handle the distance is small fry when compared to the over-arching and incredibly hubristic stance of Islam. It just doesn't brook rational argument.

To the apologists for Islam, I fear you are sealing your own fates.

To Bush/Cheney and the others who want to wage 'war' on terrorism, I suggest that you start reading history (a lot of it) and learn to understand the fundamentals of religious beliefs other than your own.

In the same way that all of us here have no impact on the above mentioned religites on these threads, you will never be able to argue reason with anyone who is enslaved to ideology. And especially to Islamic ideology. It is circular thinking to the max. And utterly impregnable.

Fanusi, I don't like your angry rhetoric, but I bloody understand your fear. I don't know whether you have ever posted a short summary of your circumstance on these threads but I would like to read that:-) if you are prepared to take the time to tell me where it is that you come from. damn, another sentence ending with a preposition. Shit I am getting slack!!

Cheers to all (and to Quetz although there will be no more tea tonight)
V

164. A Revelation

Comment #78634 by Veronique on October 14, 2007 at 1:28 am

This is from the Mathematical Institute on the Univ. Oxford web site:

Congratulations to Professor Victor Flynn, Professor Marc Lackenby, Professor Hilary Priestley, and Professor Alex Scott on the award of the title of Professor, and to Dr John Lennox on the award of the title of Reader.

165. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78489 by Veronique on October 13, 2007 at 7:53 am

2429. Comment #78482 by Richard Morgan

He drew a circle,
That shut me out.
"Heretic! Rebel!"
A thing to flout.
But love and I
Had the wit to win.
We drew a circle
That took him in.

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

166. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78474 by Veronique on October 13, 2007 at 5:16 am

2420. Comment #78379 by PaulEmecz

Hi Paul, we meet again:-).

It's a wonderful irony that I am a life member of a death organization, the 'Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New South Wales' This organization, amongst others, is a beneficiary named in my will.

So it doesn't really matter whether or not I am killed by some crazed person who cannot handle my religi-board quotes and/or violates my poor wizened body.

It is a given that the laws of the land in which I lived and died, have been enacted on a commonly held moral precept that dead bodies ought not to be violated, indeed ought not to be killed. No, of course, it doesn't matter to the particular dead body (mine), but it does matter within the social construct of my community. The thought of necrophilia with my poor dead physical body will raise bile within those who learn of such 'defiling' of my bod.

This is not a moral imperative that can be borne out by belief in a bible. This is a basic human feeling of distaste that a dead body can be violated for no other reason than that the dead body cannot rise up and accuse its violator.

I think you may have reached the bottom of the barrel of human despair. That saddens me. I do not have to attenuate my actions in this world to such convoluted thinking that constrains my basic behaviour to my fellow man.

My husband committed suicide by pumping a bullet through his head when he was 26 years old. As you may imagine, it gave me pause for thought. I was 23. I am now 64. This incident in my life has led me to cogitate on the human condition in a probably different way from the cogitation of some others.

I suspect that my thinking about this particular event in my life has meant that I have reached understandings about human behaviour that could not have crossed your front door welcome mat. If this is not so, please tell me. I have been tangentially involved in some 6 suicides (all men). Some have been community members and, of that, some have been partners of people I know. I have listened to a lot of tales of woe. I have hugged a lot of people and dried their eyes in the midst of their distraught non-understanding. I have never uttered platitudes to anyone. I will never do so.

I know that my exposure to suicide and death has left me far more compassionate to those who have to keep living and has led me to think about the mental state of those who kill themselves. The psychiatrists and others who utter profundities about these actions leave me cold. So many words, so little compassion. All of them end up with intellectual spruiking that has virtually nothing to do with how wonky people feel. All it does is bolster their preferments.

I read your post and it appears to me that you are merely posing a set of intellectual questions that, like all you religites seem to do, has zilch to do with actual living circumstances.

Quetz, it must be time for a non-tea pick-me-up:-).
V

167. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78457 by Veronique on October 13, 2007 at 1:33 am

1709. Comment #78434 by Mark Taunton

(It is partly because of the unpleasantness I now associate with a few of the names that appear on these pages, that I have been pondering recently the very question Veronique put to me – why do I still post here? I have decided that I can no longer answer that question to my own satisfaction, as justifying the time and energy I put in.)

168. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78451 by Veronique on October 13, 2007 at 1:14 am

336. Comment #78396 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I am sorry, I don't know enough about all the various religious positions in your list to answer which of them offer a logical path to wicked behaviour. At least all those that imply that the Bible is literally true do.

I've got "Quakerism" down under "good." Now where do I put:
- Mormonism
- Jehovah's Witnesses
- Sunni Islam
- Wahabism
- Orthodox Judaism
- Conservative Judaism
- Reformed Judaism
- Sikhism
- Jainism
- Zoroastrianism
- Wicca

169. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78440 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 10:46 pm

49. Comment #78436 by mr harry

Thankyou so much for that link:-).

The smile on my face just kept getting broader. I have never come across Maddox before. I may check out some more.

Cheers
V

170. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78381 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 3:40 pm

34. Comment #78362 by bluebird

I clicked on your link, then onto the youtube link.

That video has been removed 'by the user' from youtube. Hahaha - he must have received some flak over it:-).

It's embarrassing for Australians to admit that Murdoch is one of theirs:-(. But much as his fingers are in our media pies, we don't want him back:-)

Cheers
V

171. A Revelation

Comment #78378 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 3:06 pm

PGFM

I believe on an earlier thread that Quetz sanctioned most tipples and really didn't insist on any time demarcation.

So everything is in order. Enjoy:-)

Thanks for letting me waffle on about my pater:-). Just a bit more I thought of - when professors retire, if they be of best rank and station, they are awarded the title of professor emeritus. Great gobs of kudos in that. Needless to say, my pater was so awarded:-)

Cheers
V

172. A Revelation

Comment #78370 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 2:47 pm

17. Comment #78258 by Cartomancer

Hahaha. I thought that too. Her 'taste' in descriptive words lacks an objectivity that I would have thought essential in judgement.

She describes RD as the infamous author of "The God Delusion,"

Mr. Dawkins's attempt to divorce the atheism of the 20th century's tyrants from their deeds.

"The God Delusion" and similar atheist tracts

Before anyone takes me to task, I know I am cherry picking and biased:-), and she's a Christian after all.

Her article sounds nothing like the comments here on the audio of the event. I decided not to waste time listening to it. The comment thread was enough for me.

Cheers
V

173. A Revelation

Comment #78367 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 2:29 pm

4. Comment #78222 by MartinSGill

A Professor is the Head of a Department; the holder of a Chair, as in the Head of the Department of Biochemistry, Prof. So and So. It is both a position and a title.

It denotes someone who has published quite a mountain of peer-reviewed original work, which is why all professors are PhDs in their fields. There has to be a position available. One cannot be a non-working professor.

The respect granted professors comes from the appreciation of their continuing contribution to the discipline in which they are engaged.

My father was the inaugural Professor of Biochemistry in two different medical schools that had not previously had departments of biochemistry because no one was qualified enough to take on the running of a department.

Medical students in Singapore until 1948, had to seek academic study in biochemistry outside the King George V University. The position of Head of the (new) Department of Biochemistry had to be created and it was because my father was sufficiently qualified to warrant the setting up of the Department, that it came about. So a Medical School was able to be founded in the University.

The University of WA didn't have a coherent Medical School until 1958, when he came back to his home University. Medical students had to go to Adelaide in South Australia to study Biochemistry until the UWA Department of Biochemistry was inaugurated in 1958. It was quite a thing, let me tell you.

All the founding professors of the UWA Medical School were honoured last year with a terrific ceremony and the opening of The Professors' Walk. Busts of each of the 8 founders of the Medical School are attached to the walls of the walkway.

What a marvellous opportunity on this thread for me to boast and exclaim my reverence for my dear father:-). I am so enormously proud of him:-). And shamelessly so:-)

Good morning everyone, a brew of Quetz's favourite libation is in order
V

174. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78140 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 1:48 am

1689. Comment #78125 by Mark Taunton

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.

Ooh. I hadn't realised there had been a Great Glitch, how unaware of me. 150 – 200 comments is a lot to lose. Was it only on this thread? Maybe that's why I hadn't noticed. I don't visit this thread very often at all.

As to 'knots tied', it appears to me that you keep trying to explain your belief structure by relying on your belief structure and utilising arguments from that same belief structure to explain and verify your belief structure. It's very circular. The fact that your sect developed in the 19th century and uses no other text but the bible as inerrant; that there were split off groups and miffs and stand-offs is just another tale of woe told within the various Christian communities. There are a lot, you would have to agree.

Please, I have nothing against you. I am sure you are a lovely bloke and I am a lovely woman. From where I sit, I think you are as deluded as any religite I have come across. It doesn't mean that I will get into argumentation with you, because I am just not equipped with an understanding of esoteric religious dogma. I was left free of such indoctrination as a child. My understanding of the religite mind is poor, to say the least.

I read some of your posts, those of Dianelos, Bizzaro, the Flea, PaulEmecz, fides and others and I can only shake my head at, what I perceive, as 'protesting too much' and 'trying too hard'.

I wonder why you come onto this web site. I have not been able to arrive at a satisfactory answer to this. Maybe you can help although, I understand, you will only be able to articulate your own reasons:-), not those of the others.

I know that I cannot express to you in any understandable way, why I am so flummoxed and amazed at the arguments that you bring forth to validate your stance. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I have become convinced that you will never argue your way of a rational paper bag, while all the time being unaware of that paper bag.

My best
V

175. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78124 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 12:39 am

May I point out that this Christadelphian flyer was scanned and posted on this site on November 19th 2006.

That's 11 months ago. 1687 comments later and Taunton is still tied up in the knots of his own making.

Hahaha. Give it a rest the lot of you. Do any of you honestly think you can talk reason and get a Mazda moment from Mark?

Not one that I have seen yet.
V

176. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78120 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 12:15 am

Of the named recipients of this letter, the only US religious leader mentioned is that of the Lutheran Church.

Is that not odd? Or am I boxing at shadows? I am worried that Fanusi may be closer to the mark.

It's all very well to say that the conflicts in Islam are political but Islam aspires to political theocracy. One just cannot say that the religious differences are secondary. Religion and politics are inextricably entwined in Islam.

Apart from the Islamic groups that are now forming alliances to rid Iraq of its US oppressor, there are intra-Islamic problems that have translated into violence. And now Turkey is reported as massing on Iraq's northern border against the Kurds. And the Kurds are a mixed grouping as well.

And what is going to happen to all those Muslims that have been swayed, by US fundamental Xtian missionaries sneaking into Baghdad, into eschewing their Islamic faith and adopting Xtianity? If Iraq rises up and pushes the US out, what happens then? More killings by Iraqis on those Iraqis who denied Islam?

Of course you are right Brian, but the ordinary Muslim is so far away from recognising this. Remember Wafan Sultan's rant on TV? Her interviewer couldn't understand what she was saying at all. He was utterly flummoxed by her rant.

Rushdie and Hirsi Ali are now infidels and need to be killed! A religion that requires prayer 5 times a day and whose adherents are far more indoctrinated than xtians are (with the chilling exception of Patrick Henry College students and others of their ilk) are irrational to a greater degree than we can imagine.

Even if this is an ameliorative and conciliatory open letter, I can't see it doing anything of any substance to the grinding escalation of religious and cultural differences in this very real international reality.

And think of the possible backlash of this letter from both camps.

Time for a drink
V

177. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #78060 by Veronique on October 11, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Join a large club BAEOZ

Same here!! My bookshelves are beginning to overflow. Some one on this site said that RD had a lot to answer for:-) I will be reading 'til I kark it, I'm afraid. There are worse occupations:-)

My ambitions outweigh my reading potiential!

178. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #78026 by Veronique on October 11, 2007 at 2:11 pm

62. Comment #77867 by Goldy

Why shouldn't you swing? If a proposed policy is not good, it doesn't matter what political power proposes it. Ditto for 'good' policies. Heated reactions to mealy-mouthed spewed shit and hate-filled comments are perfectly legit. Have you looked at The Good, The Bad and The Ugly on this site? All the hate spewed on The Ugly thread comes from the religites. Quite disgusting, IMO.

My initial reaction to something, be it an article, a policy, a piece of news etc, may not end up being my later considered opinion. I have an Estonian friend with whom I 'chew the fat' and we have quite heated exchanges sometimes. She is an old friend whose opinion I have learned to take seriously. Good value. I am sure your wife is good to talk things over with as well:-).

You apologised for your outburst on that thread – I don't think any of us thought an apology was necessary. Swear-fests ARE liberating. And this is the perfect place for them because we are among cyber friends, more or less:-). It is an expression of frustration and exasperation. At least that's how I see my and others' outbursts:-).

Had a look at rawa.org yet?

Cheers
V

179. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #77904 by Veronique on October 11, 2007 at 4:37 am

61. Comment #77901 by Philip1978

Hahaha. You naughty man you (I can't imitate the Goons' wonderful voices:-)).

I will have a drink for you (although you probably don't need me to do this; being fairly capable yourself)

My best
V

180. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #77899 by Veronique on October 11, 2007 at 3:54 am

10. Comment #77897 by Russell Blackford

Gee, Russell, I have never reviewed anything in my life. Is this a challenge:-)? I don't mean from you, but more probably from me:-). I would love to do it and would be very measured, I would hope. But would I get the arguments in context?

OK, I'll try:-) The other one I would like to have a go at is Andy Thomson's lecture at AAI.

I hope I am game:-) Don't hold your breath:-)
V

181. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #77898 by Veronique on October 11, 2007 at 3:44 am

58. Comment #77803 by scottishgeologist

Thanks for the link to this 1994 death:-). Shit we are a weird lot aren't we? Haha. What was his background, I wonder:-)

And that's right!! What on earth do the men of the cloth think they are doing. Tut! tut!

Let's not gloat in case mother2eight is reading this thread:-)

Cheers
V

182. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #77893 by Veronique on October 11, 2007 at 3:26 am

Russell Blackford

Mark Lilla's book arrived a couple of days ago. I have had a quick flick through the pages, am still reading Sagan. It looks good. I get the feeling you would like it. But that's me:-)

Glad you liked Cohen's answers as much as I did. Makes me feel I am on a decent track:-)

Cheers
V

183. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #77877 by Veronique on October 11, 2007 at 1:33 am

Well. What a wonderfully sane interview. Mitchell Cohen is clear and pragmatic. I hope that all our religious posters read this. I hope that some of the others read this. I haven't read such a wide-ranging set of views for some time. Very refreshing. I shall look forward to the comment posts that this interview provokes:-).

Thanks Josh for posting this. It is at a salutary moment on these boards:-).

There are some good-to-be-had quotes in Cohen's responses.

I will use them.
V

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

Comment #77865 by Veronique on October 11, 2007 at 12:54 am

That's fine Chris. I would much rather have your considered comment.

BTW have you come across Dianelos on the Wht Christianity Should Take Richard Dawkins Seriously thread yet?

Hope you have time to watch Thomson.

Cheers
V

185. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #77847 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 10:34 pm

222. Comment #77239 by Monera Man and 225. Comment #77760 by Quine

I have seen this before and mentioned Patrick Henry College on these threads. Michael Faris ia one dangerous dude on mission.

This quote is what we all need to think deeply about and understand the very cool determination.

God said we are a light to the world and the salt of the earth and if light is just contained in one place or salt is kept in the shaker, then I don't see how it's doing good for anyone

186. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77843 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Excellent outcome!

Cheers
V

187. Fiction or prediction?

Comment #77841 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 9:09 pm

What a great article! What a terrific writer! A delightful read while digesting lunch:-).

I like Aldiss' take on Orwell. In fact I like everything he has written here. So there's not much need for me to comment past that:-)

Cheers
V

188. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77838 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Goldy

I have just finished reading the only book ever written about a Pashtun woman called Meena who started the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.

It's written by Melody Ermachild Chavis. Buy it and read it. It will get you angry, make you weep and throughout you will have a feeling of awe at her achievement.

She's dead, but RAWA lives on. The kids of the Afghan wars have grown up, are educated and are internet savvy:

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

Uplifting stuff:-)

OK I'll take a week and come to NZ after Feb 08.

Cheers
V

189. 'Dirty War' priest gets life term

Comment #77828 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 6:46 pm

3. Comment #77814 by BAEOZ

I forced myself to watch the National Press Club Luncheon yesterday because I am lunching with my Catholic friend Jenny today.

I loather George Pell. He was pontificating on about the expected number of young Catholics who will arrive in Sydney on July 15th, 2008.

During questions from the journo attendees, he was asked about the Church's involvement with the Nazis during WWII. He lied through his teeth and I shouted at the poor old TV. I got very angry.

Lunch now, will return later.
V

190. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77801 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 3:52 pm

31. Comment #77800 by prettygoodformonkeys

Terrific!! I have been wanting some of these emblems for ages:-).

Scrolled down the page - I think they are wonderful. Thanks so much:-)

Cheers
V

191. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #77799 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I have just read a report from the state medical examiner, posted on Alternet about an Alabama minister who was found dead in June. Very bizarre circumstances.

Gary Aldridge is also a graduate from Liberty U and an associate of Jerry Falwell. My, my!

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/64828/

Corylus, how does one keep an eye on the Falwell spawn? I can only hope that Alternet posts articles like this. I don't think we'll find out any other way.

Cheers
V

192. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77790 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 2:26 pm

101. Comment #77784 by Teratornis

I am warming to you:-).

I certainly agree with you on this and thanks for posting a cogent argument as to why it would be silly to be chased around the block while trying to morph into something else.

Your wise old man seems to have decided to limit his 12 paras into 6!:-). I am enjoying your posts.

Thanks
V

193. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77713 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 9:06 am

36. Comment #77658 by Nick Good

We had a Dr Patel here in Queensland. He has skipped to the US where he's hiding out. He was responsible for something like 17 deaths in the hospital that had employed him. He's wanted back here in Oz for questioning. I know the point you are making, but be careful:-). You are right, the name can be an indicator but can be dodgy as a methodology.

We had a cousin of the Glasgow would-be bombers here (also in Queensland and working in a hospital). He was arrested, held for weeks and treated very shabbily by the Fed. Police and our Immigration Minister (a Mother Grundy and total arse) and was finally allowed to go back to Pakistan. Poor Haneef can't even get a job now. Guilt by association. It's the hysteria that goes with the fear of terrorism that is frightening. The reaction can also be over the top as it was here.

(BTW did you read those books, I posted on that other thread where we had a spat?)

37. Comment #77660 by BaronOchs

The same thing happened here after WWII and integration wasn't a problem with the European immigrants. It is now with some Muslims. We had a riot between Aussie dipstick redneck youth and Lebanese youths a couple of years back. It got nasty and out of control.

We also have a shortage of medicos and falling rates of medical student intakes into our Universities. We recruit doctors from other countries, but I am not sure that many Pakistani doctors will want to come here after the Haneef affair.

It looks like we are all suffering from the same types of things. And even though Oz is a big country the liveable areas are around the coastline. We are becoming overcrowded as well, so far as our natural resources and infrastructure are concerned.

10. Comment #77483 by tieInterceptor

I hadn't come across Pat Condel before. He's a very serious comedian. I clicked on several of his video clips. Thanks, I like what I saw:-).

……………….

I don't like where this shit is going at all. And I don't think it is going to get better anytime soon.
V

194. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77649 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 1:57 am

Shit Goldy they have finally got your fucking goat haven't they:-). I have never seen you so wound up:-).

Thank god you have a sense of proportion. Bloody hell, you'd be lost without it. Whew. Good rant, my dear!!!

Shit – you mean if I come over to NZ I have to leave all my preconceptions at home? Humph, not happy Goldy:-). I mean, what about my wine that I won't be able to buy in NZ? Tragic, eh?

Maybe you will have to ban all Aussies. Sob. I'd like to come to Auckland and meet you:-). Do you know Jim Battye, PhD Science, Wellington (I think). I have known him all my life, but haven't contacted him for ages. Nice man. Academic.

The best I can give you
V

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

Comment #77635 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 12:46 am

Have you guys forgotten an interesting documentary about US Foreign Policy (inter alia) or what? Ages ago Tony Robinson went in search of what was happening around the world with the end-timers.

Maybe it would behove you to watch or re-watch his doco. It's called the Doomsday Code and here is its link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78pnqY4w77g (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qwAxwBYwcs&mode=related&search= (Part 2)

When you consider the evangelical madness, the huge amounts of money and the US' sanction of the Israeli dialectic, you (I?) have to worry about what is actually happening rather than us, as armchair critics think may be happening. Robinson was making a doco, but his searching frightened even him.

Nick, I posted a comment to you on the Andy Thomson thread and requested that you get back to me. I posted the titles of three books that I hope you have read prior to your getting back to me. I trust you will.

Cheers
V

196. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77624 by Veronique on October 9, 2007 at 10:56 pm

This is just pathetic. This is PC gone nuts. As well as religious apologists, we now have PC apologists. What in the world are we coming to? Is labour so hard to come by in England? Someone tell me, please, how many applicants are there for advertised jobs? Does anyone know?

If I were to go to a quack who refused me certain medical procedures and/or prescriptions on fucking religious grounds, I would be out of there like a shot (and never go back). If I were to go to a checkout where someone refused to touch and log some of my purchases, I would cancel the whole transaction and walk out (and never go back).

As an employer, I would have to agree with Barbara. As an employee, I either want to work or I don't. Unions notwithstanding.

I am old – when I was looking for work in the 1960s, of four jobs I applied for I was offered 3 or 4 of them. Over and over again – I wasn't very good at a lifetime career path:-). Those days are long gone. Now, in Oz, job advertisements attract dozens of applicants; it is hard to get work.

So why is England bowing to this sort of special treatment of people who feel they have the right to tailor their own jobs to include and/or exclude their particular penchants? And on religious grounds no less.

It's not as though England needs any more people on its little island. It's over-crowded to buggery now! Or am I wrong about this?

It appears to me that because of historical imperative and post-colonial guilt, England has opened her arms and accepted immigrants and refugees to the extent that she now has a closely quartered, culturally simmering mixed population. The pollies like to call it multiculturalism. I call it an accident waiting to happen.

Unless England draws a line in the sand and states what the conditions of entry are to her shores; unless she can get her act together (probably too late now – some foresight!!) she will forever be trying to accommodate the demands of so many ethnic groups that she will fail them all. Including her indigenous (if there ever was) peoples.

I want to come to Cornwall and Yorkshire to explore the history of my family. What am I going to find? Bloody shit, is what I am beginning to think! Why would I bother? The Land of my Fathers – I am not sure any more. Maybe the Land of Wankers instead!

FFS
V

197. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77616 by Veronique on October 9, 2007 at 10:08 pm

I don't know what to make of this. On one hand this clothing is something that some Muslim women feel comfortable with. On the other, it appears to a yoke around them, keeping them in submission.

I don't know whether the article is talking about Muslim women who have come to Quebec and have been used to covering their heads and feel exposed without that covering – be it whatever type of head wear. If they are refugees, I can understand why they would want to be covered up. Takes a while to slough off repression. The only thing wrong with this is that I would have thought that refugees were running away from the strictures of fundamentalism and female repression. In that case, I don't understand why they would come to a (groping towards) secular state and now fight to retain the symbols of submission.

Or is it referring to women who have converted to Islam? If so, then the passion of the newly converted is usually pretty high and slavish adherence to the perceived norm is inevitable – at least for a while. And if head scarves etc are part of the norm, then of course they are going to wear them.

Remember the video that claimed that there were something like 400,000 Muslims in Texas? There was a converted Texan interviewed and all the women and girls in his family were wandering around the streets of Texas in traditional Islamic attire. I thought it a bit precious, but then again, they were recent converts. See above.

I also recall seeing a documentary where a western female reporter was in Afghanistan. When she donned a burqa in order to go about in safety, she commented that she felt quite protected and invisible under that burqa. But that was in Afghanistan, where I could understand her comments.

In Quebec? I just don't know. The only thing I can really say is that religions aim for and succeed in being a stranglehold on the hearts and minds of people. That's why religions disgust me. Apart from the intellectual dishonesty and emotional dependence of course:-).

Very odd
V

198. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Comment #77577 by Veronique on October 9, 2007 at 6:11 pm

47. Comment #76989 by dvespertilio

Wow! That's a lot of hoops to jump through. I had no idea that the road was as strewn as an obstacle race:-).

I am going to save your comment because I can see it being useful for me to read through again.

I knew there were armed guards, but it sounds frightening to me, here in Oz. It's 35 years since I last taught so I don't really know much about what is happening here in the way of teacher education, but it's nothing like what you have to go through. We have (at the moment) state curricula and an advisory board under the aegis of the State Education Department. One for each state. Local boards and input doesn't happen the way it does where you are.

Thank you very much for the time and effort you put in for my sake:-).

50. Comment #77304 by BullShifter

My fear is that Howard and his (religious) ilk will muddy the waters of what has been until now, a secular, if conservative state education. I don't like Bishop's stated political objective of bringing education under the federal banner. 'Tis a centralist government, this one. I hope Labor will be better, but am not convinced.

That's quite a tale that you have to tell. It's also coming from a faith-based school, so I guess I am not all that surprised.

It was suggested to me that I leave Richmond Tech in 1972, but I was picked up by the Lower School of Swinburne College and spent 2 great years there being 'unconventional':-). I couldn't go back to teaching but I want to start an off-campus forum on critical thinking for yr 10s next year. Wish me luck:-).

Thank you both and thanks for the white space in your posts, much easier to read:-).

Cheers
V

199. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77383 by Veronique on October 9, 2007 at 7:17 am

33. Comment #77335 by IanG

I wasn't going to bother posting on this thread. I have said what I wanted to on the original thread on SH's AAI speech.

You don't post much do you? I am glad you did this time. Well said and thank you:-)

Cheers
V

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

Comment #77361 by Veronique on October 9, 2007 at 6:08 am

1131. Comment #76942 by CHeard

Sorry, missed this post from you. And you have probably found Thomson's lecture by now. It's called We Few, we happy few, we band of brothers and the videos are on the home page here on this site.

You have had answers to your question about anger. The anger felt is not just by us here and not just expressed by us (that sounds very inclusive, doesn't it?).

I could add to the comments here. I could post to the end of time about this anger and still not be able to express it properly. And, I have to say it has little if anything to do with atheism.

Corylus has spelled it out but I would guess she could also talk about this sort of anger to the end of time and still not have said it to her satisfaction. No one can.

So let it suffice to say that my anger is too deep for tears. I am sure that you recognise the literary reference:-)

Bless Shakespeare, he knew how to express the complexity of the human condition with compassion. And Shelley got it right too in Ozymandias. And others. But not the Bible.

My best
V