201. Fleabytes

Comment #144235 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 12:48 pm

SG: AAAAARGH... I am dazed and confused... Time is going backwards - I've now got a response to your posting up before your own posting.....

Yes, sorry. I realised that my first post contained a statement that was incorrect, so I deleted it - but obviously not quite quickly enough!

Still, at least it gives you the perfect excuse to hit the malt.

202. Fleabytes

Comment #144233 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Oh, isn't Google a wonderful thing!
Look what I've just found (thank you, Google) on http://www.christianfocus.com/
In a section promoting Robertson's book, The Dawkins Letters:

It's official! Richard Dawkins website says that 'The Dawkins Letters' is the best response to 'The God Delusion'.
OK, so they didn't exactly like it but their reviewer said "rather astonishingly only one attempted a serious rebuttal of The God Delusion and imparted a clear view of it's writer's beliefs - and that was David Robertson's". She also said that "I also had the preconception that Alister McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion, would probably be the meatiest of the four... But I was wrong about McGrath."

Do you know, when I wrote that sentence I did so in the full expectation that one day it would turn up as though it were actually endorsing Robertson's book. I even considered taking it out, for that very reason, but then decided to leave it in on the basis that it IS the best of the (egregious) bunch and I refuse to change my behaviour out of defensiveness about theirs.

Quite apart from the fact that I am not the Richard Dawkins website, did anyone else spot the rather unchristian glee at my denunciation of Alister McGrath's book? Perhaps this will be more understandable when I tell you that the publisher of Robertson's book is none other than ... Christian Focus!

Anyway, the comment on christianfocus.com continues:

When Richard Dawkins published 'The God Delusion', David Robertson wanted there to be an intelligent Christian response. After some ill thought through interventions in the media it was obvious that no one was really going to answer the real issues so David Robertson wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins on his church website. This has found its way into Richard Dawkins website, where it generated the largest response of any posting before or since.

Ahem. "Or since?" I think their website in in rather urgent need of updating. This is Robertson's letter on the RD website: http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson - from which you will see it generated 577 comments.

Now, I can't tell when ChristianFocus last updated their website but, if they're being honest in their "before or since" claim, we have to suppose it was before May 2007, since that was when this - http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews - appeared, and generated over 2500 responses.

However, we haven't yet reached the best bit. You're going to love this. Included in the Reviews of Robertson's book you will find the following gem:

"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? Search RichardDawkins.net all you like, the earliest reference to it comes in a pdf of a poster for one of David Robertson's talks - you'll find it here: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35893>

There's simply no prior mention of it.

And how convenient that it should have been from an anonymous atheist!

By the way, that quote also appears on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-Letters-Challenging-Atheist-Myths/dp/1845502612), under the Product Description section of the book (i.e. the descriptions supplied to Amazon by the publisher, I assume, since it's hardly likely that Amazon go trawling the internet to find their own quotes for each of the many hundreds of thousands of books they sell):

- "Richard Dawkins' Website April 2007
"Wow, this is an intelligent and well-crafted view of RD's book."
Anonymous Atheist

Ah, these dear, sweet, moral Christians. WWJD? Anything at all, provided it served his purposes, it would seem.

EDIT: I posted a slightly different version of this a few minutes ago, which some of you may have seen, but I deleted it because I realised it contained an error. However, the correction to the error is equally amusing, I think you'll find :-)

203. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #144054 by Paula Kirby on March 15, 2008 at 1:46 am

Oh no, not more mortal sins. I haven't had time to commit all the first lot yet.

204. Fleabytes

Comment #143897 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Fedler, D'Arcy, and SG: Thanks for that.

205. Fleabytes

Comment #143882 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 2:43 pm

D'Arcy: I have noticed that Robertson, whilst he obviously believes in "original sin" whether metaphorically or not, steers clear of believing in a 6004 year old Earth (?universe, same thing?).

Does he? I haven't noticed any posts from him on this subject one way or the other, though I may just have missed them. Has he said he doesn't believe the bible is literal in this respect?

206. Fleabytes

Comment #143755 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:59 am

Clodhopper: Paula: Bet she needs your help to get rid of fleas though. :-(

I can assure you that no fleas are permitted over my doorstep.

207. Fleabytes

Comment #143745 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:46 am

mikejswalker: They just laughed the heartless bastards.

Oh dear. I think I have a confession to make.

208. Fleabytes

Comment #143740 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:43 am

Incredulous: While words definitely influence our behaviour, I don't accept that someohow it means we are so substantially different to our animal relatives, in that I believe we will find more similarities in underlying proceses than we subconsciously would like to admit.

I know nothing about this field either, but instinctively I'd tend to agree with you, Incredulous. It seems reasonable to me to suppose that there would be some thoughts and ideas that we couldn't explore or become conscious of, or perhaps even generate, without language as a tool. But I feel sure that at lower levels there are similarities between us and other animals, for all that.

For instance, my border collie has a very expressive face. She can, without a shadow of a doubt, express longing, ecstasy, boredom, cheekiness, guilt, contentment, fear, excitement and defiance. Many's the time I've laughed at her complete and utter lack of need for spoken language: in many ways she's more articulate than I am.

How could she express such emotions if she weren't experiencing them?

209. Fleabytes

Comment #143715 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:12 am

Brian: I've heard of Richard Dawkins. Does that redeem me in your eyes?

Richard Who?
;-)

210. Fleabytes

Comment #143709 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:08 am

Brian: Francis Crick, whom I've never heard of. But you've got his name in your quote above. Small world.

You're not serious, Brian?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

211. Fleabytes

Comment #143703 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:05 am

The laws of physics didn't make themselves.
God made them, but he is not ruled by them.

Good heavens, Irate. Is that really what that stuff means? How can you tell?

212. Fleabytes

Comment #143700 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 10:02 am

Epinephrine: I wonder about the difference between animals that truly pair bond for life and those (like us) that are less prone to permanent bonds

Ah yes, of course - that would make sense.

213. Fleabytes

Comment #143693 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:59 am

5330. Comment #143686 by Dr Benway on March 14, 2008 at 9:56 am
For the benefit of LOL-challenged boring people like me, PLEASE can someone provide a translation? It's the first time I've actually wanted to know what this stuff means!

214. Fleabytes

Comment #143674 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:49 am

Elli: Paula, your story just made me emit a sullen and involuntary "aaawwwwhhhhh". I am for some reason very emotional this afternoon.

Yes, it brought a little lump to my throat too, as I remembered it.

Good to hear from you, Elli - haven't seen you around for ages!

215. Fleabytes

Comment #143662 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:36 am

MPhil: But we have no justification to assume that animals fear death

Steve Z: Oh I think we do. We can see their reaction, their mourning.

One day about ten years ago I was driving along a very long, straight track in the Alentejo, in Portugal. Far in front of me I was aware of something moving around on the track in an odd fashion. When I got closer, I saw it was a female bird - not one I recognised, but it looked finch-like - in a complete and utter frenzy by the dead body of her mate. She was twittering and fluttering around, up and down, up and down, pecking at the dead bird as if trying to wake it, and making the most heart-rending noises. She seemed to be in so much distress that it seemed almost impossible for such a tiny, delicate frame to bear it all.

About two hours later I was driving back along the same track - and she was still there, still twittering, still fluttering, still trying to "wake" her mate, still giving off all the signs of shock and utter distress.

The sight has haunted me for years (as you can tell). I can't account for her behaviour in any way that excludes the experience of avian emotions at least similar to the human ones of grief, shock, fear, panic and, who knows, perhaps even love?

Am I being too fanciful? Could there be a non-emotional explanation for her behaviour?

216. Fleabytes

Comment #143646 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 9:08 am

Richard M: MUSICAL PORTRAITS - THE FLEABYTES "THREDLEY".

Well done, Maestro! This thread wouldn't have been the same without you. Your forthcoming break is well deserved.

217. Fleabytes

Comment #143587 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 8:14 am

Dr Benway: It's time consuming, isn't it, responding to Robertson's distortions? Just when you think he must concede that you've caught him in the act of bending the truth, he invents a new twist.

It's not JUST time-consuming (though it certainly is that too), it's also rather sickening, I find. I detest his kind of deviousness. Interestingly, the only other person I have ever encountered it in - and the resemblance in the behaviours is almost uncanny - was another Free Church minister! He was another one whose words could never be taken at face value, and with whom you had to watch every word YOU spoke because he would twist them all beyond recognition for his own ends.

I find that quite interesting, and wonder why 2 ministers in the Free Church should exhibit such similar, highly deplorable behaviour.

Does it just reflect the sort of people drawn into the Free Church ministry?

Does it form part of the training?

Or is it just the culture in the Free Church, that requires the minister to be RIGHT all the time, and that responds unforgivingly to error?

I don't know. But the similarities in the behaviours of these two men are so strong that when I first read the posts by "Wee Flea", I seriously wondered whether they were by this other person.

218. Fleabytes

Comment #143428 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 5:34 am

Clearthinker: Speaking of facts - and since Paula is into sharing with you the Free Church website let me cite the following in our latest exchanges -

Paula you wrote - Actually, I don't. I have just performed a text search on "central atheist beliefs" and it isn't there.

But in your own review you write the following:

Julian Baggini shows how Soviet Communism was in any case two steps removed from the central beliefs of atheism

(This is from your reviews on letter 9).

Unless you want to be really pedantic and argue that 'central atheist beliefs' are somehow different from 'the central beliefs of atheism'! Anyway I will leave you to answer the original question - if atheism is just simply not believing in God - how can you have central beliefs?

Now the interesting thing here is that Paula made a mistake. If that was me you would all have been accusing me of lying, misrepresenting etc. However I am not accusing Paula of that. She just made a mistake. Mind you the initial mistake was writing the sentence in the first place - it certainly gives the lie to the notion that atheism is 'just the absence of belief in God'. There are apparently many atheist beliefs - some of which are 'central'.

Ooh, David, you are on such dodgy ground here! Because this is how I answered your post on your forum:

Paula: Quote from: DAR on Today at 10:19:14 AM
Unless you want to be really pedantic and argue that 'central atheist beliefs' are somehow different from 'the central beliefs of atheism'!
No, of course not! My apologies. I did a text search on the phrase you had used, since you'd put it in quotation marks. Obviously a text search on "central atheist beliefs" won't find "central beliefs of atheists". But you're right - it's there. Sorry.

The point where I used it was the run-up to a quote from Julian Baggini, who does refer to atheist beliefs in the context of a rebuttal of the tired Hitler/Stalin/Mao argument. There you have it - despite our alleged tenets and creeds, atheists take different approaches to things!

However, the fact remains: being an atheist simply means that you do not believe in a god or gods. It does not require you to take a particular view on anything else. There is no atheist doctrine that say that, in order to be an atheist you must not believe in a god or gods AND you must believe that science is the best thing in the world, or you must not believe in a god or gods AND you must hate all religion, or you must not believe in a god or gods AND you must be a fan of Richard Dawkins. If you claim, as you do, that there are "tenets" of atheism or that atheism has a "creed", you really should tell us what those tenets are and what's in the creed. It won't be good enough to demonstrate that x number of atheists on the Richard Dawkins website appear to hold x, y, z views. For these to be tenets of atheism, you would need to demonstrate that one cannot be a real atheist without them.

Now, the REALLY interesting thing about this, David, is that I not only apologised as soon as my mistake was pointed out to me, but - and this is the REALLY good bit - now that I have acknowledged that my first response was wrong, I won't be repeating it two weeks later when I think no one's looking. You see, that's kind of at the heart of an apology - that you don't do it again. Present company excepted, of course.

219. Fleabytes

Comment #143325 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 2:26 am

We have talked many times about people believing what they WANT to believe, rather than what the evidence points to, and David Robertson has provided a beautiful example of this on the Free Church forum this morning.

As you no doubt know, I have been explaining on that forum the thinking behind the Inverness event with Richard; explaining why UHI have decided to do it as they have; explaining that UHI never asked Richard to do the event as a debate and in fact themselves dismissed it as an inappropriate format; explaining why people are having to give the names of attendees when they book tickets, and why it would be absolutely impossible to use that information to weed out the Christians; explaining why an interview, in fact, gives Richard LESS control over the content than would a straightforward lecture; explaining how this event fits into the overall pattern of UHI events and how it will be balanced later in the year by a similar event with a prominent Christian; and explaining that there is no way of censoring audience questions, because no one will be asking for advance notification of them.

So they now have a comprehensive account of just about all aspects of the event, straight from someone who has been part of the planning for it and therefore really knows what has and has not been said.

What difference do you suppose that has made to David's thinking on the subject? Yes, you're right. Absolutely none whatsoever. His latest post says:

Again thank you for your explanation and assurance. Personally I still think the whole thing is a set up. I know that Dawkins does not like to debate (and as he generally does not come of well, I can understand why).

Could we ask for clearer evidence of how he arrives at his beliefs? Pure gut feel, prejudice and raw emotion. The facts don't point to what he feels to be true? Then the facts must be wrong.

It's almost comical. Almost but not quite.

220. Two More Fleas

Comment #143307 by Paula Kirby on March 14, 2008 at 1:09 am

severalspeciesof: As for myself, I'm trying desperately to get through McGrath's "Dawkins' Delusion" without resorting to the use of a shotgun.

I sympathise. It is quite possibly the worst book ever written. It is SO bad that I would almost encourage people to read it, simply because you can have no idea how bad a book can be until you do.

221. Fleabytes

Comment #143121 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Steve: Basically, though, my post was an excuse to mention those hydrogen atoms with the power of housebricks... that is so amazing to me I had to sneak in in somewhere!

And quite right too!

Now, why might God have made them do that, I wonder? Perhaps we should ask Wooter.

222. Fleabytes

Comment #143114 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Steve: I think some people find religion comforting because it offers such a small view of the universe. They may call God infinite, but I am sure many really mean is that God is simply a celestial superman, big enough to defeat all enemies and look after me.

I agree with the whole of your post, Steve. I didn't mean to suggest that the universe was necessarily a benign or safe place. Just that it makes the bible look unbelievably petty and mediocre by comparison. Of course some people will prefer the bible for that very reason, but I see that as part of the harmful delusion too, for Christianity does nothing to encourage such people to overcome their life-narrowing timidity, but actually makes a virtue of it instead.

223. Fleabytes

Comment #143103 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Star Spangled Eagle: The Bible is blasphemous against the true nature of the universe - whatever that may be!

I agree 100%. The universe is so awe-inspiring, so full of grandeur, so deeply thrilling, and the god of the Bible is so petty, so childish, and so ridiculously fixated on the minutiae of human behaviour, that it is perfectly reasonable to see the Bible as insultingly trivial. It is like a children's comic instead of Shakespeare; a scribble on a scrap of paper instead of a Vermeer; a hot Ribena instead of a fine Remy Martin.

It goes beyond the Bible, to Christianity itself. The more I see the way Christianity closes its followers' minds, the way it attempts to keep the universe within confines that its followers can understand, the way it fights tooth and claw against any advance in knowledge that might possibly cast doubt on its absolute certainties, the way it tries to force people to adopt an Iron Age morality, the way it discourages honest doubt and enquiry, and the way it tries to portray those who don't accept its nonsense as bad, evil and not to be trusted, the more I tend to think that it is not just a delusion, but a really harmful delusion.

224. Fleabytes

Comment #142944 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 8:42 am

JamesWoods: I think this catholic priest wins the human kindness award...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7292081.stm

Yes, of course. In a league of his own.

KaiserKriss: If anything, I find his chosen lifestyle of celibacy, deceit and indoctrination as abhorrent about which something should be done.

It certainly doesn't seem to have a very good effect on them, does it?

225. Fleabytes

Comment #142931 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 8:17 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7294193.stm

Ah, another Catholic Bishop brimming over with the milk of human kindness.

226. Fleabytes

Comment #142912 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:32 am

Steve: Congratulations! To Paula, and to everyone. Not just for quantity, but quality.

I'd like to echo that last bit. Getting to 5000 posts had very little to do with me, actually. I just got you started. 5000 could never have happened without everyone else's clever, witty, brilliant, sometimes mind-boggling, combative, conciliatory, funny, sometimes silly, sometimes deeply moving, challenging, knowledge-loving - and last but definitely not least - musical contributions.

Thanks for all of those, and thanks for your company throughout this l-o-n-g thread (and others too, of course!)

You know, one day someone really ought to organise an RD.net party. Now there's a thought.

227. Fleabytes

Comment #142895 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:23 am

ClodhopperI have every confidence that Paula has 5K ready. It just needs p[r]oof reading.

OK, right, here I go. *Clears throat*
M'lords, ladies and gentlemen ... Unaccustomed as I am ....

Right, well, that's quite enough of that.

What can I say, guys and gals?

5000 posts.

It's either a miracle, or we all have much, much too much time on our hands.

By the way, I would like to clear up one area of persistent misunderstanding on this thread. The correct beverage with which to celebrate P5K is not coffee, not Ribena (not even cold Ribena, let alone hot - ugh), not beer, not coca-cola, not whisky, not even (and I'm sorry, Quetz, but I feel entitled to insist that even a deity give way to me on this auspicious occasion) tea.

The correct celebratory drink is a beautiful, curvacious glass of Remy Martin. Cheers!

228. Fleabytes

Comment #142877 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 7:01 am

SG: I notice an outraged character on FCOS forum (AKA the RD.net annexe....)

Yes, 'fraid so. I have submitted a response and am just waiting for it to get through moderation.

I'd already read this person's post a page or so back when a few people here were commenting on the difficulty of getting people to drop unfounded beliefs that they are emotionally wedded to - and I allowed myself a wry smile.

I have no problem at all with people disliking atheists' views, or with people thinking atheists have got it completely wrong. They can feel that way and keep their feelings to themselves, or they can feel that way and do their level best to show WHY atheists' views are so wrong in their view. Either of those is fine by me.

But to make the leap from "I don't like Richard Dawkins' views" to "so his Inverness event must have been rigged and censored" is really quite unacceptable to anyone who's responding with their brain rather than their emotions.

But this is the key issue, as so many people have been saying here of late: religion is a deeply emotional phenomenon, and it isn't experienced through the medium of rational thought.

On the FCOS forum I have explained very clearly how the event was organised and how it's going to work. I've explained that it would be impossible to turn people away on the basis of their religious beliefs, even if anyone had wanted to; and that no one will have any way of knowing what the questioners in the audience are planning to say before they say it. I have also explained that it was UHI who decided that a debate would be the wrong thing for them, and why an interview - even with a fellow atheist! - can never offer as much scope for one-sidedness as a lecture.

They are hearing this straight from the horse's mouth, as it were - I have, after all, been involved in the arrangements (well, not the real nitty-gritty stuff, such as the ticket-booking arrangements, obviously!) and so I really do know what went on; and, being part of the event itself, I really do know what the intentions for it are!

Yet even hearing from someone who has been actively involved in the arrangements has not been enough to shift some people's sense (well, one person's, at least) that there simply MUST be more to it than that.

This person does not seem able to conceive the idea that a person can be an atheist without necessarily also being devious, dishonest and conspiratorial. Or perhaps she simply NEEDS to see atheists in that light. Perhaps she NEEDS the boxes labelled "Go[o]d" and "[D]evil". Perhaps she NEEDS the world to be that simple and is terrified of opening her mind to the thought that it might not be, because then everything else she NEEDS to believe would unravel as a result.

My explanations are proving ineffective because they are being repelled by the mental equivalent of a reinforced concrete shutter, and there is no chance that they're going to be allowed through.

I post this here, not to make fun of the person on the FCOS forum, but because it's a phenomenon we encounter a lot, one way or another.

What is the right response? Well, I firmly believe that nothing we can say will make the slightest difference to someone who is adamant that everything we say is, by definition, all lies. But I still think it's worth TRYING, because on a forum like this, or the FCOS one, it's not JUST our immediate correspondent who will be reading.

On the FCOS forum I will never convince this particular correspondent that she's getting herself hot and bothered about nothing. But there will presumably be others who are less rigid in their responses, who WILL read my explanations and WILL see the truth of them. At least, I live in hope.

229. Fleabytes

Comment #142828 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 6:05 am

43 to go....

I'm not sure that hitting the Big 5K is going to be quite the big deal it's being cracked up to be if the last 50 posts just consist of a countdown!

So here's a serious question for you:

Er, no, sorry, can't think of one.

:-)

230. Fleabytes

Comment #142749 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 4:38 am

Clodhopper: It is possible the RDnet software may not be capable of 'recognising' 100 pages as possible whereupon the entire internet might collapse.

Ah yes. That'll be the P5K Bug. Beware: aeroplanes may fall out of the sky too. ;-)

231. Fleabytes

Comment #142712 by Paula Kirby on March 13, 2008 at 3:34 am

Cartomancer: Carry on gentlemen, as you were.

"Gentlemen"????? Do I look like a gentleman?????? I'd stay off the Coca-Colas for a while if I were you, Cartomancer. They seem to have a decidedly lowering effect on your consciousness!

232. Two More Fleas

Comment #142531 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Room101: Great. 2 new fleas. Paula - you're on the clock ;o)

Aaaaaarrrrgghghghghghghgghhghhhhgh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I've suffered enough, truly!

Seriously, that's over 20 fleas now. It seems that pesky God Delusion takes an awful lot of refuting. 20 flea books and STILL the Christians feel the need to keep kicking it: so despite all the fleas to date, they clearly don't think Richard's arguments have been defeated!

Now, here's a thought. Since God has already revealed himself definitively and inerrantly in the Bible, why don't they just refer us to that instead of writing more books that, by their own reasoning, can't possibly be as good as the one God wrote? Perhaps they think God needs a helping hand? An interpreter? A good editor? They don't seem to have a very high opinion of God or his book when it really comes to it, do they?

233. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142474 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm

3D Science News had also shot the lecture but it turns out neither Dr. Dawkins or the folks at RDF want it posted. So we won't be posting it. Probably because they will post their own version and would like some control over the craziness that is the internet.

I've been looking out for these videos on this site too, but I guess they're holding back for now since they won't want to spoil the fun for anyone planning to attend one of the later lectures in the tour. So I suspect we're going to have to be patient for a little bit longer ...

234. Fleabytes

Comment #142454 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 2:09 pm

MLearnedFriend: That's disappointing. It seems a given on this thread that Archaeological evidence shows the Bible narrative is false.

I think it's more a question of very significant biblical narratives not being supported by archaeological evidence when, if they were true, you would expect them to be. The issue of the Israelites and the 40 years in the desert, for instance.

A tribe of a significant size wandering across the desert for 40 years could be expected to have left very considerable archaeological evidence of the fact, but there have been numerous extensive archaeological digs and they simply haven't found anything that might point that way. Literally nothing. Even religious archaeologists have acknowledged this. And it's not because such evidence could not be found if it were there, as we know from the evidence of far smaller and much earlier groups of hunter-gatherers around the world.

Does this prove that the Exodus story never happened? Not absolutely, no. But when a story, if true, can be reasonably expected to have left archaeological traces, and when absolutely no such traces can be found, despite really intensive searching, including by people who WANT the story to be true - then at the very least we have good grounds to doubt it.

235. Fleabytes

Comment #142427 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 1:25 pm

MLearnedFriend: In response to your question. The general point I was making was that an accumulation of less-specific predictions was valid in earning trust as effectively as (if not more convincing) than a single very specific prediction. As epeeist says (pardon the paraphrase) something too perfect makes us suspicious.

That's ok, it doesn't have to be a perfect prediction. I'd still be interested to see, say, 3 or 4 of the less specific predictions that you feel, taken together, justify your faith in the predictive power of the Bible overall.

Paula, now you realise that you have ruined my credibility by being nice to me!

Huh. What do you suppose it's done to mine? ;-)

236. Fleabytes

Comment #142417 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Whatthe...: Surely the above quote is one of the most comical that has been posted on this site. Mr Sands would have us believe that moral values are relative. Yet in his very next line he proceeds to make an appeal to what he regards as a self-evidently objective moral value "you CAN'T just define something as an absolute". If Mr Sands was to be consistent he would have to believe that David CAN define anything the way he wants for, after all, all moral values are relative.

There is a difference between "can" and "may". Morality is all about "may", not "can".

237. Fleabytes

Comment #142344 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 11:01 am

Steve Zara: Paula:
You patience and stamina are astonishing.
Just thought that needed saying at this point.

Thank you, Steve, from an increasingly IMpatient and weary Paula! I have quite deliberately chosen not to engage in arguments with DR on his religious views: I had enough of that when reading his book and writing my review; my views have been expressed at length in my article; and I don't see the point of regurgitating them just because he regurgitates his.

I will NOT ignore deliberate distortions of fact, however. Well, even that's not true - I'm conscious of having ignored quite a few, but I have my limits.

238. Fleabytes

Comment #142334 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 10:44 am

4651. Comment #142103 by clearthinker on March 12, 2008 at 2:38 am

Note the leap there from the UNIVERSE being pitilessly indifferent, to ATHEISTS being pitilessly indifferent.

If you do notice it, you are noticing something that is not there. I never said that.

I can only think, David, that you are depending on readers not being able to find the source of the quotes you take from my review and therefore not being able to check your denials. This is what I wrote:

David Robertson doesn't like the look of the universe described by Dawkins. He quotes from The Blind Watchmaker: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference" â€" but then twists that description to write: "That then, is the atheist basis of morality â€" no justice, no rhyme nor reason, no purpose, no evil, no good, just blind, pitiless indifference."

Note the leap there from the UNIVERSE being pitilessly indifferent, to ATHEISTS being pitilessly indifferent.

Now you are claiming that you don't make such a leap, but it is right in front of all our eyes. You go on to say

"it does not seem much of a morality. It is still primarily focused on the Selfish Gene. It is all about me, me and mine.

It is clear from this that you are talking about ATHEISTS and not the universe.

239. Fleabytes

Comment #142331 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 10:36 am

Clearthinker: Incidentally RD was never given the option of asking someone else to write for our magazine. The arrogance of asking someone to write a piece for a magazine which is not theirs, and which they were not asked to do is breathtaking. And he was offered an indefinite time limit when it became clear that 1,000 words was too much too soon. And he was given an assurance that his words would not be edited. It was RDs right to choose not to write it. It was not his right to ask someone else to write it for him.

David, you are clearly quite determined to see everything anyone at RD.net does in the worst possible light. Rather than simply saying "No", the desire was to say (and this is the actual email):

>> Dear David,
I am afraid that Richard has too many other deadlines to be able to do a thorough job by the end of this month. We do however have someone we
could recommend to write such a review if you so desire.

Note the "if you so desire". It was offered as an option, not a fait accompli. It is also hard to see how the option could have been honestly offered, had they not already checked that I (in this case) would be willing to do it.

You are making ridiculously heavy weather out of all this and making yourself look both silly and vindictive in the process. Not that there's anything new there, but is this really the effect you are aiming for?

240. Fleabytes

Comment #142325 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 10:26 am

Clearthinker: They ignore the fact that I was commenting on Paulas statement that atheism is de facto secular, humanist, rational and democratic.

What I actually wrote was:

Is Robertson really unable to distinguish between boorish thugs who are driven by a totalitarian ideology that leads them to create an ersatz religion based on a virtually "divine" leader, and a movement that is trying to create a world based on secular, humanist, rational, democratic values? Each of those four adjectives is important, and each one of them marks and extends the gulf between the goals of the "New Atheist movement" (always supposing there really is such a thing) and those of the self-idolizing, inhumane, insane and anti-democratic monsters with whom Robertson and other theists are so desperate to associate us.

There is no suggestion that atheism is de facto anything. Of course it isn't. There will be atheists who are none of the above. There will be theists who are none of the above. However, it is impossible to read the works of the Four Horsemen (the people behind the "movement", such as it is) without getting a strong sense that they are rooted in "secular, humanist, rational, democratic values".

241. Fleabytes

Comment #141922 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 11:48 am

SG: Hey! Just notice you got a posting on the FCOS web site. Cant see how they could argue with the information you give there

Thanks. It was simply a question of setting the record straight. Arguing over views is one thing. Misrepresenting facts is quite another.

242. Fleabytes

Comment #141893 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 10:34 am

Quetz: I haven't yet noticed her giving many examples about precisely HOW this censorship will be going on. Funny, that.

Yes, it would be intriguing to know how that might work. Presumably either Eden Court or UHI or Richard himself would have to have a Black List with the names of every Christian in the country on it. And that information would have to be held in a pretty big database that was also superfast, so that when people phoned Eden Court Box Office to book their tickets, the staff there would know in a lightning flash whether the caller was on the banned list or not.

This cunning plan is slightly undermined by the fact that I was present when a friend of mine phoned to book her ticket the other day, and she was told right at the start of the phone call that yes, she could have a ticket, and she was only asked her name towards the end. Maybe the cunning atheist technology is even cleverer than we'd thought.

Of course, there is the other side to the question too, which is why on Earth would anyone want to do any such thing? Why would UHI, who simply wanted to fill a large auditorium, turn certain potential attendees away? Why would they comply with a request from Richard to do so, EVEN IF such a request were ever made - which OF COURSE it wasn't. Why would Richard want an audience full of atheists? He is more than able to handle questions and challenges from Christians, as video after video after video shows, and not only that, he actively wants those questions and challenges to be made SO THAT HE CAN REBUT THEM.

The whole thing is really quite ridiculous.

243. Fleabytes

Comment #141837 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 9:27 am

Steve Zara: To be blunt, it is lying.

To be fair, I wouldn't go quite that far on the "commissioning" issue, since David can't be expected to know what did and did not go on behind the scenes. Not that this lack of knowledge has prevented him from asserting as fact what is simply his assumption.

However, no such excuse can be found for his renewed allegation that the Fleabytes article was "not even highlighted on [Richard Dawkins'] own website", since this ridiculous claim has not only been dealt with numerous times here, but David himself has publicly acknowledged that he was wrong on this point:

14. FleabytesComment #134829 by clearthinker on February 28, 2008 at 8:41 am Paula, I own you an apology. Your article is on the front page. I had been away from this site for so long that I did not realise that this was now how it worked. I was wrong. Apologies.

How can anyone with even a smidgeon of integrity post this apology on our website on 28 February, and then repeat the allegation on HIS website on 11 March?

By the way, on a different subject (Richard's Inverness event), I see that a poster on David's Free Church forum is repeating as fact what David himself attempted to insinuate on this thread (and the poster in question says she has read this thread, so there's not much doubting where she got this idea from, is there?):

Censoring of those who attend/wish to attend such a lecture/discussion staged in the name of UHI also begs many questions.

Since I have explained very clearly to David on this thread that there is absolutely no question of any such censorship taking place, it would be nice to think that he would post a message on his forum correcting this entirely false statement. I'm obviously not holding my breath though.

244. Fleabytes

Comment #141758 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 7:05 am

Oh look, he's still at it:

David Robertson on http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.120
5. As regards my question - I already explained that on the website. The questions still stands - why did Dawkins commission this 30,000 word article and yet not even highlight it on his own website?

(My emphasis.) What are we to make of someone who makes a false claim, is corrected, apparently accepts the correction and apologises - and then repeats what he now knows is a FALSE claim elsewhere? Honest? Reasonable? Truth-seeking? Trustworthy? I think not. Devious? Despicable? These are more like it, I think.

By the way, no one, let alone Richard Dawkins himself, commissioned me to write a 30,000 word article for the website. You asked Richard to write a review for the Monthly Record. He said no, but asked someone at RD.net to contact me to see if I'd be willing to do it instead. Given the short time scale you'd given, I had already started on the project when RD.net heard that you had found an atheist-turned-Christian to do it instead. At that time, RD.net suggested I could still do a review for the website if I wanted.

And there were no stipulations of any kind, either regarding content, or the books I chose, or word count, or anything else. "Commission" is a totally overblown word to use to describe such an arrangement.

245. Fleabytes

Comment #141742 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 6:44 am

Clearthinker: The posts on the threads that are entitled Interact with David Robertson are precisely that. I moderate those ones. Furthermore we do not allow anonymous posts. I assumed that ‘J’ was Jonathan. Until J identifies himself the post will not be posted.

Strange. There are other posts from "J" on your forum. Seems anonymity wasn't such a problem for those but then, they weren't particularly critical of you. Ah well.

Despite the forum being called "Interact with David Robertson" it is shown on your website as having more than one moderator:

Interact with David Robertson
Interact with David Robertson
Moderators: David M, DAR, Gordy M, Alex MacDonald, dowboy, moderators

I thought maybe you just used a standard list of moderators on all your fora, but no:

The Monthly Record
For discussion of issues raised in The Monthly Record. Items relating to the editorial style will not be published, but should rather be addressed to the Editor.
Moderators: Gordy M, dowboy

Now, I really don't care whether you are the only moderator or whether there are 5 of you as your website says. Either way, SOMEONE clearly approved the post in the first instance, and SOMEONE clearly removed it again afterwards. There must have been a reason, and the anonymity one doesn't work for the reason given above.

By the way, if you prepare your posts in Wordpad rather than a word processor, you won't get all the odd symbols.

246. Fleabytes

Comment #141684 by Paula Kirby on March 11, 2008 at 5:01 am

MLearnedFriend: If I do this consistently then more and more people will start reading my new national newspaper column and winning big on my advice. I have earnt their trust

MLearnedFriend, first I'd just like to see how very refreshing it is to see a Christian trying to engage in genuine discussion here. Thank you for that.

To pick up on your point in your post above, I'd like to know which bits of the bible you see as being the equivalent of the analogy you use. In other words, which prophesies in the bible "have earned your trust" in the rest of it, and why?

247. Fleabytes

Comment #141534 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm

MPhil: No hard feelings, okay?

None whatsoever! :-)

248. Fleabytes

Comment #141522 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Are we in the business of silently worshipping here?

No, of course not. But to quibble publicly about a single, solitary syllable in a piece as damn near perfect as Cartomancer has produced here seems at best misjudged.

249. Fleabytes

Comment #141518 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Steve Zara: When in the presence of genius, there is a time to nit-pick, and time to stand back and admire. I support the second approach.

Exactly. Enough already.

250. Fleabytes

Comment #141502 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Cartomancer: Just brilliant. Both posts. I'm speechless - and THAT doesn't happen very often!