151. Fleabytes

Comment #153749 by Paula Kirby on April 2, 2008 at 1:39 am

No time for blockquotes. Just a quickie to say that the negotiation with UHI about the format was simply about doing it as an interview rather than a presentation. Again, just for absolute clarity - there was never any question of a debate.

David's comment above makes it sound as if Richard asked to be given a platform in Inverness and that's just plain wrong. The idea originated with me: I was keen to hear him speak in Inverness so asked UHI if they would be interested in having him as one of their public lecturers if it were possible to get him. UHI, understandably enough, leapt at the chance, so at that point I asked Richard if he would be willing to consider an invitation. He said yes, provided it could be combined with a second Scottish speaking engagement so as to justify the time and travel. The rest, as they say, is history.

152. Fleabytes

Comment #152765 by Paula Kirby on March 31, 2008 at 1:46 pm

7393. Comment #152763 by Vadjong on March 31, 2008 at 1:40 pm
It could be argued that he should concentrate on writing a better case for Christianity first.

153. Fleabytes

Comment #152672 by Paula Kirby on March 31, 2008 at 10:18 am

Clodhopper: And the conclusion we draw from this is........?

We're irresistible?
It's a lot more fun here than on his own tedious Free Church forum?
He's trying to endear himself to us?
He's a secret atheist trying to summon up the courage to come out?

154. Fleabytes

Comment #152610 by Paula Kirby on March 31, 2008 at 8:58 am

Steve Zara: I do hope Paula is sitting down with a nice strong cup of tea if she reads the article.

Yes, I've read it! I'd already heard from UHI that the BBC were pursuing a story along these lines, and there was only ever going to be one way it would have originated. So no surprises of any kind whatsoever.

It's a rather good example of the way that religion ALWAYS wants us to treat it as a special case. After all, as I've already written on the FCoS forum, UHI public lectures are ALWAYS like this: an invited speaker who has a free run for 3/4 hour or so before taking questions from the audience.

When UHI held a public lecture on "You can go far with physics" a couple of months ago, no one contacted the BBC to complain that the message wasn't "balanced" by someone saying, "Maybe, but you can go farther with art history". Last week's public lecture on UHI's role in encouraging entrepreneurship in the Highlands and Islands wasn't "balanced" by a second speaker advocating Communism. At last year's lecture series on the Highland Clearances, "balance" was not restored by having someone on the stage claiming that they'd never happened.

Yet for some strange reason, Robertson and his ilk think that religion deserves to be treated differently from every other subject. Other than the move to Eden Court Theatre in view of the anticipated demand for tickets, Richard Dawkins is being treated by UHI in exactly the same way as every other speaker they've ever had - and in exactly the same way as the Christian speaker will be treated later in the year (who, incidentally, will ALSO be in Eden Court Theatre).

Imagine if UHI had done this the other way round and had the Christian speaker first. Can you imagine Robertson then contacting the BBC to argue that an atheist should have been invited to share the stage in the interests of "balance"? I think not.

Our freedom-of-speech-loving Christian friend is simply in a blue funk because Richard is getting the chance to put the case for atheism without a Christian immediately getting the chance to argue back. Strange, isn't it, that he considers that Richard makes such a weak case for atheism, yet he should be so alarmed at the prospect of his having a Highland audience all to himself?

155. Fleabytes

Comment #152261 by Paula Kirby on March 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Richard M: Richard the Threadful (Paula dixit)

It's ok, Richard - you've been forgiven now you've removed that horrible photo! :-)

156. Fleabytes

Comment #151841 by Paula Kirby on March 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Richard Morgan, is that YOU in the Cartomancer/Very Model of a Modern Major Atheist song (http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes)? Because, if so, it doesn't sound like you at all !!!! If you see what I mean ...

157. Fleabytes

Comment #150877 by Paula Kirby on March 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Richard M: Paula - look what happens to your thread when you leave it alone for a few days

Yes, it's a salutary lesson, I can tell you! I thought the Fleabytes article was broad enough to encompass most kinds of discussion, but I have to confess that even I hadn't foreseen that beer might be one of them ...

Sorry to have abandoned you of late: I had some sort of stomach bug that drained me of energy for about 10 days, AND have been very busy at work, AND have been trying to study, AND, of course, have The Big Event coming up next week and need to prepare for that. So I'm afraid I really haven't had chance to do more than skim-read the posts recently, and I am valiantly resisting the temptation to get sucked back in - until after next Wednesday, at least.

See you again then!

158. Fleabytes

Comment #147792 by Paula Kirby on March 21, 2008 at 8:53 am

Talking of the silliness of the re-enactments of the crucifixion in the Philippines ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7305522.stm

"Health officials in the Philippines have issued a warning to people taking part in Easter crucifixion rituals.

They have urged them to get tetanus vaccinations before they flagellate themselves and are nailed to crosses, and to practise good hygiene."

159. Fleabytes

Comment #147784 by Paula Kirby on March 21, 2008 at 8:40 am

You know, I think Pathfinder may have produced evidence for resurrection at last. Just look at how he used to post when he first graced us with his presence:

Comment #145319 by Pathfinder on March 17, 2008 at 1:28 pm

SSE: While it's true I didn't progress much beyond the 10 Grade I am an AUTODIDACT(look the
word up) and I have some question's for you witch you wont be able to answer. SCIENCE is the HANDMAIDEN OF THE ANTICHRIST. Teller, Oppenheimer, even Einstein: what did they do? Unleesh destruction on the CHRISTIAN world!
Atom bomb's and depravity and faggotism and lessbianism and comunism. The legacy of ATHEIST'S. Thank's, guys.

And just look at him now! What a difference 4 days make. Was the old Pathfinder crucified? Did he descend into hell? And on the third day did he rise again, with a sudden miraculous ability to write full sentences with not a stray apostrophe in sight? Not to mention the ability to spell words such as "unnecessarily" and "schistosomiasis"? It's a miracle, I'm telling you!

What do you mean, you don't believe it?

160. Fleabytes

Comment #147770 by Paula Kirby on March 21, 2008 at 8:15 am

PlagioClase: Paula Kirby. You'd be surprised. Do you ever pray to God?

Do you ever pray to Thor?

161. Fleabytes

Comment #147759 by Paula Kirby on March 21, 2008 at 7:56 am

PlagioClase: I hear there are a lot of Christians praying for Richard Dawkins, too.

Not a GREAT advert for the power of prayer, hmmm?

162. Fleabytes

Comment #147662 by Paula Kirby on March 21, 2008 at 4:59 am

Steve Z: I hope Paula doesn't mind, but there are some interesting issues to do with evolution raised in David's post that I would like to deal with.

Why should I mind? Back in the very early days of this thread I wrote, when asked, that I'd be quite happy for Robertson to post his responses to my review here. Why shouldn't people be given the chance to see them and engage in discussion of them if they wanted to? But I never had any intention of entering into discussion with him about them myself, on the basis that he has already expressed his views in his book, and I have already expressed my views on his views in my review of it. There seems little point in endlessly repeating the cycle. Besides, the whole point of putting my article on the website is to open up the discussion to everyone else: I've had my say already.

David evidently feels threatened enough by arguments against his book to feel the need to leap in and defend every one of them all over again. I don't feel the same way about my article. I have expressed my view of his beliefs for all to see. It's over to everyone else now to decide for themselves whether my comments are a fair response to his book, and whether his attempts to deride them are a fair response to me. Besides, although David doesn't seem to realise it, there's more to winning an argument than simply having the last word!

163. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146639 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 8:42 am

82abhilash: Do most people cling on to religion and its illusionary happiness because politicians (and all those in power) are not dealing with real issues that we are facing?

Interesting question. I believe it's been pointed out before that there tends to be an inverse relationship between a society's religiosity and its welfare provision. Just compare and contrast the US and Sweden.

164. Fleabytes

Comment #146632 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 8:35 am

Ian Bamlett re Pathfinder: Come on peeps - this is fake for sure. The games up.

Well, one thing's for sure and that is that there's no point whatsoever entering into discussions with this person, whether he's fake or not. If he's fake, then it goes without saying that arguing's a waste of time. If he isn't, then it's clear from all the mad, malevolent, bigoted nonsense he's spouted to date that he's far, FAR beyond the reach of reason.

Ignore him for long enough and eventually he'll go away.

165. Fleabytes

Comment #146623 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 8:28 am

Geoff: Paula, Sadly, it is a spoof. Isn't it? Have you looked at the "reader comments"?

Yes! But there are Christians out there who are every bit as adept at getting the bible to mean what they want it to mean.

166. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146476 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 5:56 am

Since it has been claimed in other reports that the religious are also HEALTHIER than the non-religious, this report from the BBC website may be of interest too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7304393.stm

Though, of course, I suppose it's always possible that it's Ceiling Cat that the article's referring to... ;-)

167. Fleabytes

Comment #146467 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 5:47 am

Richard M: epeeist - believe it or not, there really are Christians who consider that without penetration, there in no "sexual relation". Witness the young unmarried Christian couples who get up to all sorts of shenanigans, but she remains a "virgin because he hasn't actually poked his thingummy inside her.

I offer, for your edification and delight, the following guide to Christian sexual morality: http://www.sexinchrist.com/

Spoof or serious? Really - how could you possibly be sure?

168. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146396 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 3:29 am

The question of what makes for happiness is an interesting and rather confusing one. There was a report a while back saying that people who were members of bowling clubs and other social groups were happier and healthier than people who weren't. There was another, even more recently, saying that genetics were a strong factor.

It seems obvious (and perfectly reasonable) that people who are members of some kind of group, particularly one that shares a common goal and/or interest, who consequently feel an accepted part of a community, with people who know them and care about them, will derive benefits from that in terms of emotional well-being. Humans are social animals and there is plenty of evidence to show that social isolation is one of the most detrimental things for our health.

Religion has traditionally played an enormous role here, so we really shouldn't be surprised at the results of this latest research. As others have pointed out, the benefits accrue to followers of all religions (and other groups)with a social element, so clearly have nothing at all to with the truth or otherwise of the beliefs held.

There's another side to this, too, which is that Christians are taught to trust God and to put their problems in his hands. This could genuinely lead them to be more sanguine when trouble strikes - though, again, whether it is WISE to be sanguine when trouble strikes is an altogether different question.

Alternatively, being openly worried and concerned could be interpreted as a sign of inadequate faith. Telling others that you're sure God will see you through is likely to elicit the approval of your fellow church members; admitting that you're worried sick is likely not to. This may well affect what levels of worry and concern some Christians feel able to express.

169. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146378 by Paula Kirby on March 19, 2008 at 2:51 am

At last - an article that treats this story with the seriousness it deserves:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/religious-belief-makes-you-smile-like-a-psycho-killer,-say-experts-20080318805/

:-)

170. Fleabytes

Comment #146135 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Mark W: Hey all. I've been a reader/lurker here for many months

Welcome, Mark! It's good to have you with us. Best wishes for your house move and the arrival of broadband. But be warned: the internet may just take over your life!

171. Fleabytes

Comment #145957 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Batreader: The quote in the book makes it clear that the quote was in response to the letter on the Dawkins website, not the book. It's a quote about what's in the book so that's pretty fair by modern usage standards. Methinks you may be pushing the envelope a little with this one but hey! keep pushing.

Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree, Batreader. I'm not talking about what's in the book, I'm talking about what's in the publicity for the book and the impression that is thereby created.

You simply cannot take a quote about a letter written 4 months before a book is published, and use it in the publicity as if it had been about the book! You can't quote someone AS IF they'd read the book in question, when they haven't.

You CAN say, "This is what someone wrote about something else the author has written"; but that is not how the quote was used in the publicity in this case. Not on the publisher's website, not on Amazon.

And it's no good saying that it's ok because people will see where the quote really comes from once they've bought the book - that's not how the rules of advertising work. "Well, it's ok if we tell them in the advert that the colour's green, because they'll see for themselves that it's blue once they've bought it."

172. Fleabytes

Comment #145953 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Incredulous: My parents still live in the area. I don't think you'd describe where they live as grim, run-down, deprived and they certainly wouldn't like you referring to the area in such dismissive, disparaging tones, however worthy the cause.

No offence intended, Incredulous. I'm sure nearly everywhere has its nicer areas too. I used Tipton because I visited someone there some years ago and what I saw of it was the grimmest, most depressing place I'd ever seen. And no, I haven't led a particularly sheltered life!

173. Fleabytes

Comment #145918 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 9:55 am

Steve: Isuggest we delete posts, to allow Paula no 6000.

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!! I'm running out of speeches!

174. Fleabytes

Comment #145856 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 8:18 am

Irate: Splitter!!

I'm sure it would all have been in the interests of Christian unity. Oh no, wait ...

175. Fleabytes

Comment #145849 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 8:13 am

Quetz: Paula, you're a big cynic! Did the guy ever set up a church?

Not that I know of. But he could have set up some kind of house church that I wouldn't have heard of.

176. Fleabytes

Comment #145841 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 8:05 am

Quetz:it's always fortunate when God's plan for you coincides so perfectly with what flatters your ego.

Ah yes, God is good. Some years ago, when I was still a Christian, a new bod turned up in church one Sunday. He had just moved up from somewhere in England, claiming that God had called him to set up a new church in the Highlands.

I couldn't help replying, "Oh, wasn't that nice of him? Just think - he could have called you to Tipton."

(For those outside the UK, Tipton is an incredibly grim, run-down, deprived town in the Midlands of England.)

177. Fleabytes

Comment #145837 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 7:54 am

Quetz(quoting David on FCOS): I know what he has called me to do.

Yes. Interesting, isn't it: one of his most vehement protests against Richard is the allegation that he (RD) "KNOWS he is right"! Apparently, knowledge is dangerous when based on reason, but desirable when based on a warm, cosy and utterly unverifiable feeling that God has spoken to you.

178. Fleabytes

Comment #145832 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 7:44 am

Steve Z: Do you think that because of his beliefs he can be so knowingly unpleasant and deceptive and still believe he is doing good?

I think it's perfectly possible that he thinks so, yes. God working through an unworthy vessel is something of a leitmotif in Christian teaching, so if he's decided God has called him to the task, then he'll convince himself that God is working through him, even if he himself can't see that it's doing much good. Faith, dear boy!

On the other hand, a more cynical explanation fits just as well. This is someone who styles himself "The Man who stood up to Richard Dawkins", for goodness' sake! There's ego at stake here, self-image. He is patently the wrong man for the job, apparently having neither the abilty nor the personality to do it effectively, but perhaps the fact that he's being ineffective (downright counterproductive, in fact) doesn't really matter to him deep-down at all. At least he's being acclaimed in his Christian community for "standing up to Richard Dawkins", and is being treated with more respect as a result. He's being invited to perform at various venues - he's never been so much in demand! How flattering! How ego-boosting! Would he stop even if he thought he were actively harming his cause? Possibly, possibly not. But it's my guess that his self-preservation mechanisms will protect him from ever realising that this is, in fact, what he's doing.

179. Fleabytes

Comment #145817 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 7:15 am

Steve Z Ok Pathy... own up... who are you? I am guessing Quetz or Brian?

Good guesses, both - but let us not forget the dark arts of our very own Cartomancer ...

180. Fleabytes

Comment #145815 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 7:07 am

Paula "Wow, this is an intelligent and well-crafted view of RD's book." Response from an atheist on Richard Dawkins Website.
Now, where does that quote come from?

Clearliar: 5477 - Paula (and following posts) : Paula, you are really getting desperate. And you should have learnt by now not to post things without first checking them. Firstly all the quotes given in my book were genuine and were from this website - I have a record of them all - because I had a faint hint that something might happen to them. .... So I guess I can't really blame you for making (yet another) mistake but please, the next time you accuse me of lying - at least have some substance to your accusation.

(My emphasis)

The dispute is over the use of a quote from the Richard Dawkins website to promote Robertson's book, The Dawkins Letters. It is quoted on the publisher's website, www.christianfocus.com, in a section headed "Reviews"; it is quoted on Amazon.co.uk, in the "Product Description" section; and it is quoted on a flyer advertising one of David's own talks, in which his authorship of The Dawkins Letters seems to be the main "selling point" (see it here: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893&start=0)

Now, here's a funny thing.

The quote was posted on the Richard Dawkins website on 12 November 2006. (Check it out here: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson,page2#6116)

But The Dawkins Letters wasn't published until 20 March 2007. (Check it out here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-Letters-Challenging-Atheist-Myths/dp/1845502612/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205848762&sr=8-1)

How very clever of "Paul" to review a book that hadn't even been published yet!

The quote - even if genuine - is not referring to The Dawkins Letters at all, but to Robertson's open letter to Richard Dawkins, which you can see via the link above.

So why is it being used to promote your book, David? What definition of "honest" are you using that makes this legitimate?

UPDATE: I have since drawn this issue to the attention of the publisher and they have now amended the wording on their website. David, don't think for one moment that this lets you off the hook. My questions still stand: Why was this quote used to promote your book, and what definition of "honest" are you using that makes this legitimate?

181. Fleabytes

Comment #145715 by Paula Kirby on March 18, 2008 at 3:20 am

Steve Zara: You used the term "commissioned" to describe how Paula's review was arranged. A "commission" means that a contract was involved. Saying to someone "would you like to write something?" is not a contract.

Using the term once could be considered a mistake. Using it again after you have been corrected is lying.

Steve, you are quite right. Except that the deliberate falsification has gone beyond even this. Not content with the original misrepresentation in the word "commissioned", and despite the fact that the article had NOT been commissioned in anything resembling a meaningful sense of the word, he then not only continued to repeat the claim, but to embellish it too.

So, it wasn't just "an" article that was commissioned (sic), it was a "30,000 word article". Note: for this to have been true, there would have had to be a formal contract with me that specified a 30,000 word article. I have already explained that this was not the case. Since he's the one making the big deal about the provenance of the article, you'd think he'd recognise the fact that there is a difference between being commissioned to write a 30,000 word article, and simply writing an article that happens to turn out to be 30,000 words.

He embellishes it further still by claiming that "Dawkins commissioned this 30,000 word article." By this stage just about every word in the sentence is a complete distortion. As I have ALSO already explained, Richard was not involved in "commissioning" or even "requesting" an article for the website. Just because Richard suggested that an RD.net volunteer contact me to see if I'd be willing to take on a 1000-word review for the Monthly Record if its editor would accept it, does NOT mean that Richard himself directed everything that subsequently emerged from that interaction with the volunteer. It's rather amusing to see David repeatedly attribute the same kind of omnipresence and omnipotence to Richard as he himself attributes to his God. In fact, I have no reason to suppose that Richard even knew I was planning to do an article for the website, since my dealings were entirely with one of the RD.net volunteers (whose idea it was, by the way) and, contrary to what David likes to claim, Richard does NOT routinely involve himself in the nitty-gritty of the website. (Now wait for Clearliar to twist THAT into, "Aha - so Dawkins didn't actually want her to do an article for the website at all and felt embarrassed that she had, and THAT'S why it wasn't in the Featured column!" !!)

What a shining beacon of honesty and transparency he is!

182. Fleabytes

Comment #145379 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 2:15 pm

How splendid. Somehow we atheists contrive to be both fascists and communists at the same time. Clever, aren't we?

183. Fleabytes

Comment #145353 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Philip: If you could show me the death threats and who sent them I would be interested to see them. If anyone truly has wished you dead then I will back you up and say what dreadful people they are, nobody deserves to be threatened with death, not even you.

Philip, much earlier in the thread someone did get carried away and started writing jokily about going to one of David's lectures and bumping him off. He then repeated variations of the joke a few times. From the context it was perfectly clear that it was precisely that - a joke - but it was clearly an inappropriate joke, so the 3 posts concerned were removed by the moderators.

184. Fleabytes

Comment #145342 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Steve: I don't know much about Paula, but I am sure she is not a Dalek (well, pretty sure).

I've never even found the idea remotely appealing - not until this evening, anyway ;-)

185. Fleabytes

Comment #145321 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Enough's enough, Pathfinder. I've marked your last post as a troll. I hope others will do the same.

186. Fleabytes

Comment #145317 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Clearliar:Sadly that is not the case. I asked on my the Free Church website - "Why did Dawkins commission this 30,000 word article and yet not even highlight it on his own website?". The statement is a simple statement of fact - you were asked to write the article. The article was not highlighted (featured) on RD net. And yet on this basis you call me abusive, a distorter and a liar. I am seriously asking what is going on?

What is going on is that, as I have already pointed out, your definition of "honesty" is "not technically a lie". You really are beneath contempt.

EDIT: Actually, you know what? I'm not even going to let you file this under "Not an honest representation but not technically a lie" because it is just, plain false. Richard Dawkins did NOT commission me to write a 30,000 word article for the website. Richard Dawkins did not commission me to write ANY article for the website. The article came about through a process that I have now described several times, both here and on your own forum, so you have no excuse for continuing to misrepresent it. Except, of course, that it suits you to do so, and that's good enough for you.

187. Fleabytes

Comment #145313 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Pathfinder: Still, God is serious bussiness and I'd thank you not to take his immortal glorius name in vain.

Pathfinder, you appear not to understand what an atheist is, or the purpose of this website. WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD. Or any god, come to that. If you want to be with people who are going to speak of "him" in the reverential terms you prefer, you're in the wrong place. Bye bye.

I take grave exepttion to the idea we crawled out of the PRIMEVIL slime.

Tough. I'm afraid reality doesn't adjust itself to your preferences.

Hell is a grim and dreadful reality we all have to face,

No, hell is just a grim and dreadful fantasy that you believe to be true because it says so in the Bible and someone told you that the Bible is true. If you want to fantasize about it, that's up to you, but please do it elsewhere.

188. Fleabytes

Comment #145299 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Pathfinder:This is an extremely well maintained website with a great deal to recommend it, for the Godless. However, I feel no one is really dealing with Clearthinkers excellent point's.

Perhaps you could summarise his excellent "point's" (sic) for us, as we seem to be having some difficulty identifying them.

I mean, come on, I take your word Atheism isn't a "belief system", but what am I supposed to think with this virtual SHRINE to Professor Dawkin's here? It's like Graceland.

You would appear to be confusing two entirely different issues here. You're quite right in saying that atheism isn't a belief system. What does that have to do with this website which, after all, is actually called RichardDawkins.net, which might have given you a clue as to the main focus of its content?

It isn't moderated? Death threats, anyone, to poor Clearthinker? The loss of all those post's? C'mon guys I am a bit apalled at this hoobris.

Who said it isn't moderated? It is moderated, just very, very lightly. The "death threats" were made in jest, as you well know, but they were removed because they were considered unacceptable. There are certain fora, of course, whose moderators act more like censors, not permitting messages to be posted at all before they've been officially approved - but this is the sort of heavy-handed control-freakery best left to the Wee Frees.

What, precisely, is your point about the "post's" (sic) having been lost?

You might want to look up the meaning of "hoobris" too, though you may need to check out how to spell it first.

189. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145259 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Petermun: "A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief" - what absolute tripe. When first wife died 6 years ago I found many of those with faith who tried to console me made things so very much worse - it was those without faith who were the greatest consolation - and the most "real".

Yes, I can't say the chorus of "It must have been God's will", "He's in a better place now", "It must have been for a purpose", "I'll pray for you" and "God will help you through it" from my Christian friends helped one little bit when the man I had loved very deeply for many years was killed in a car crash some years ago. All anyone can do for you at a time of the utmost grief is just be there with you, hug you and let you cry. And you don't have to believe in trite, patronising crap to be able to do that.

190. Fleabytes

Comment #145247 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 11:59 am

severalspeciesof: I've just finished reading McGrath's mole book "The Dawkins Delusion?"

You lucky thing, you!

It's really, seriously bad, isn't it!!!

I'm not sure I approve of the term "mole" though. Unless you're a gardener, moles are quite cute. Though, now I come to think about it, perhaps you're onto something: they're blind, they spend their whole lives going down one dark tunnel after another, they make free with other people's property, you can always tell when they've been around because they leave piles of muck behind them, and there are a lot of people who would argue that the world would be a better place without them.

Hmm, yes - I think perhaps you've hit on something!

191. Fleabytes

Comment #145144 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 10:03 am

Mike, when I first started posting on this site, I was quite prepared to give David the benefit of the doubt. But post after post after post after post from him has decided me otherwise. Time and time again he has been given the opportunity to engage in proper, civilised discussion with us if that was what he wanted to do. And time and time again he has gone out of his way to avoid it, and to simply seek out opportunities to distort and abuse.

Time and time again we have seen him twist and distort, until honest debate and discussion become absolutely impossible. You cannot enter into a meaningful discussion with someone for whom the word "honesty" has become debased to "well, it wasn't technically a lie".

If I despise David - and I do - it is simply because time and time and time again his behaviour on this site has been and continues to be despicable.

If your book was shredded (yes i do mean shredded David) on a religionist website, you don't seem the kind of person that would take it with a pinch of salt. You would give every dodgy point a good slap around

Don't fall for his claim that it's his views that are at the root of the disdain in which he's held by so many on this site. He's welcome to argue the issues as much as he likes. What he's NOT welcome to do is lie and distort and abuse. If you are in any doubt as to whether this is, in fact, what he does, I suggest you click on "Other comments by Clearthinker" at the foot of any of his posts, and select any of his posts at random. Then do the same for "Wee Flea".

No one else on this website has ever, so far as I am aware, generated the kind of hostility that this man has, yet the challenges and potential pitfalls of conveying our meaning in print form are the same for all of us. Many other Christians have posted on this site, some of them extensively, and, although we have expressed our disagreement with them, none of them has provoked the hostility and disgust that David has.

I almost hesitate to quote this example of his seriously warped hold on honesty, since it so directly concerns me, but it is recent and it is demonstrable, so I shall: first he attempted to cast doubt on the independence of my review by claiming it was the officially sanctioned response to his book; THEN, when that didn't work, he immediately went to the other extreme of claiming that it wasn't on the front page and suggesting that this was because RD.net was slightly ashamed of it. Just think about that for a moment - how can an honest person go from sincerely believing an article to have been officially sanctioned by RD.net, to sincerely believing that it is an object of embarrassment to RD.net, in the space of just a few hours? Of course, they can't. It's just that his first attempt to cast a slur hadn't worked, so he simply grabbed the next one that crossed his mind. And we see this tactic deployed again and again.

But it doesn't stop there. Having had it forcefully pointed out to him that the article WAS in fact on the front page and that the claim about trying to hide it away was therefore plain wrong, he then acknowledged his mistake on this website and apologised for it.

Which might have justified your attempted defence of him, had it not been for the fact that 2 weeks later he then REPEATED the very same claim on his own forum.

Mike, your tolerance is, in this case, misplaced. David has shown us again and again what kind of person he is. Just stop and think for a moment - if someone SERIOUSLY, GENUINELY wanted to get us to question our stance, to reconsider our views about Christianity, would they behave as David does? No. And this has been pointed out to him over and over again - but he doesn't seem able to help himself.

Save your sympathy for someone more deserving of it, Mike. Robertson certainly isn't.

192. Fleabytes

Comment #145063 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 8:10 am

Steve Z: To be fair, that is understandable. I relish the attention :)

I don't wish to embarrass you, Steve, but you do actually merit the attention. You post meaningful, content-rich, intelligent, evidentially supported, educational messages, which are always well worth reading. Even when not posting in such serious and educational vein, you are witty and interesting, you go out of your way to be fair and balanced, and you actively contribute to the life and warmth of the community that has sprung up on this website.

All David does is come in here and vent his spleen.

193. Fleabytes

Comment #145048 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 8:00 am

Mike: This is probably easier to answer after the perfidy, but, would we be a little teary had the target not been provided by the siphons for this unbelievable thread to exist?

No. We wouldn't have known what this thread would turn into, and therefore we'd have had nothing to lament. Are you shedding any tears over the fabulous thread on Life Now That There's No Religion Anymore that hasn't happened yet? No. You might (or might not) wish that such a thread were appropriate, but you can't miss something you've never known.

Besides, those of us who've been on this website for a while now (and there are many who've been around far longer than I have) can tell you that there is an inverse relationship between the number of the Flea's posts and any possible value contained within them.

It may seem entertaining for a while, but it doesn't take long for the regularly repeated formula of "Twist and Shout", in which he only seeks out those parts of our comments that he feels able to pour scorn on - by twisting what we said, if necessary - whilst simultaneously being careful never to reveal just why he feels the alleged evidence for his beliefs is so strong, to become incredibly tedious.

Why does he post here? He makes no attempt to show his own faith to be reasonable, he apparently has no intention of giving sensible, helpful answers to the questions we put to him, his role here would not appear to be that of either a would-be pastor or a would-be educator. He despises us, he dislikes us, he disapproves of us, he distrusts us, he dislikes the way the website works; he himself has written that posting here is a waste of his time - yet he keeps coming back. I can only conclude that he has a lot of anger and bile stored up inside him and finds it cathartic to be able to spew it all up here.

Either that, or he just relishes the attention.

Or both.

194. Fleabytes

Comment #144907 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 3:03 am

Richard M: Do you have a Myspace or anything like it? A blog, perhaps?

Not as such. But you'll find the nearest equivalent at www.richarddawkins.net ;-)

195. Fleabytes

Comment #144895 by Paula Kirby on March 17, 2008 at 2:35 am

Geoff and _J_ - Thank you for your flights of Shakespearian fancy! Lovely stuff!

mixmastergaz: Afterall, I doubt that Paula thought to herself when proofreading 'Fleabytes' "You know this would all be immensely improved if I change from a straight forward first-person authorial voice and write it instead imagining myself to be a mermaid. That should just give it that extra rhetorical boost to make it really bite."

True. But there's always next time.

196. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #144727 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Richard M, at least you don't need to compose one for Wooter. Someone's done it already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNssIhS7ATc&feature=related

197. Fleabytes

Comment #144709 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm

mikejswalker: In the beginning there was Bovril. And lo, it were beefy.

That's not my God you're talking about. My God sent Marmite.

198. Fleabytes

Comment #144502 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 8:53 am

Frankus1122: I think I am obsessed. After reading a few hundred posts last night I actually had dreams related to this thread. I worry about me.

Goodness. You had me worried about you there for a minute too.

Luckily, your next post showed that concerns about your sanity were entirely unnecessary:

The concept of sin is a way of controlling behaviour. My atheism is, in part, a rejection of that desire for control.

:-)

199. Fleabytes

Comment #144466 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 6:31 am

tstinchcombe Tea: Some while ago in the depths of this thread there was a small, but detailed, diversion into the relative merits of various beverages - tea, coffee, Remy Martin etc. I don't recall there being any clear concept of 'a winner'.

There's a little more to it than this, since tea is the officially beatified drink of the great god Quetzalcoatl, (who, as you may have noticed, graces us with his presence and his posts from time to time) and therefore carries considerable spiritual significance on this site for some posters. For some reason I just had a hunch that Calcanei puppa may have strong feelings on the subject too! (Perhaps I'm psychic.)

You're right about the missing 300 posts. Some time ago there was apparently a switchover between servers behind the scenes at RD.net and this coincided with about 300 posts being lost, apparently for ever. Since it ALSO coincided with discussion of David's open letter to Richard Dawkins (a thread on which David had posted extensively), a lot of those posts (though NOT just David's) were amongst the 300 that vanished.

He has tried to suggest on a number of occasions that this was deliberate sabotage on the part of RD.net, since his arguments were SO strong and SO irrefutable, the atheists were left with no choice but to shut him up! You'll be able to judge from the posts of his that you HAVE seen whether his high opinion of their terrifying effect on us is warranted. :-)

Sorry to newcomers: it can take a little while to get the hang of some of the in-jokes and old stories on a site like this. They're not intended to make anyone feel excluded, they just arise naturally when you get as many regulars on a site as we have here - so please do ask if you're feeling bewildered!

200. Fleabytes

Comment #144455 by Paula Kirby on March 16, 2008 at 5:25 am

Geoff: Paula, have I misunderstood the lyrics? I've always thought of it as a parody of the Xmas story. The "angel gabriel" as an alien space traveller taking the piss?

I think you may have done, Geoff. Quite a few of his songs have a Christian theme, and I've seen articles that claim he calls himself a Christian - in which case it seems unlikely that he'd have deliberately made them parodies. Maybe it's just that Poe's Law applies to Christian lyrics too?