251. Fleabytes

Comment #141102 by Paula Kirby on March 10, 2008 at 3:14 am

Quetz: where is Clearthinker when you need him? :)

When's that, then? ;-)

252. Fleabytes

Comment #141023 by Paula Kirby on March 9, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Richard, it's lovely - thank you SO much. You are a seriously talented man. xxxxxxxx

PS. I just love the visual images you assign to your compositions too. Of course I'm very taken with the dying fleas on mine, but the one that goes with Wee Flea's is just brilliant!

253. Fleabytes

Comment #140943 by Paula Kirby on March 9, 2008 at 6:49 am

Steve Z: Your insight regarding these matter is amazing, I have to say.

I'm not sure it takes much insight: DR makes the association of atheism and the devil pretty clear in his book, I would say, as I think the bit I've quoted above shows. It's clear from his book that he really does see the universe in terms of a cosmic battle between Good and Evil, God and the Devil.

Consider, too, the comments he made in his "Welcoming Remarks" to the November 2007 edition of the Free Church magazine, The Monthly Record, which featured responses to the "New Atheist" books:

The theme for this month is The New Atheism. I realise that many people will think it is pointless to consider this â€" partly because most people claim to be agnostics and not atheists, and partly because most of us have enough difficulty living the Christian life without having to stare into the black hole of atheism. Yet the simple fact is that books on God, the Bible and Jesus are the new publishing phenomena in our society. Many of our neighbours, friends and workmates are reading
these books, and while many may not be theoretical atheists, most are functional atheists, living as if there were no God.
This renewed public interest in religion gives us a tremendous opportunity to present the Good News of Jesus Christ. Please read through all this, pray and consider how you can make the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

254. Fleabytes

Comment #140902 by Paula Kirby on March 9, 2008 at 4:37 am

Verylee: Maybe some get off on the titillation of dialogue with and baiting the devil's playmate

I think you may be on to something here. David Robertson has made it clear that he sees the growth of atheism as part of the "evil times" we live in, and in his book he actually makes a connection between Richard Dawkins and the devil!

You want to replace God with humanity. You want us as the Higher Consciousness, to become like God. I believe that a long time ago there was someone else who once offered humanity the key to all knowledge. We fell for it then and have ever since been paying the price. I pray that we will not fall for that one again.

Robertson and his acolytes see attacks on atheists as being attacks on the devil. This again explains the way they go about it. You wouldn't, after all, waste time being courteous to the devil; you wouldn't attempt to identify points of consensus before tackling the issues of contention; you wouldn't even feel the need to argue with him or convince him he was wrong; you certainly wouldn't worry whether your methods were personally hurtful or offensive. You'd just feel the need to destroy him, using whatever method you can think of. Nor would you need to feel remotely bad if some of those methods were on the dirty side, if they involved lies and misrepresentations and malicious insinuations, for instance. Such scruples would be absurd under the circumstances!

255. Fleabytes

Comment #140897 by Paula Kirby on March 9, 2008 at 4:22 am

Geoff: there are probably as many different motivations as there are theists

I'm sure that's true. I'm sure there are also many genuine reasons why a theist might want to post here: if they felt we'd missed the point, for instance, that we were looking at Christianity in the wrong light and were rejecting it as a result of that erroneous perspective. It wouldn't then necessarily be that they were trying to convert us as such, just prompt us to see the question differently. (An analogy might be the way we'd respond to a theist who rejected evolution by natural selection because complexity couldn't arise by chance.)

Many Christians (and I'm limiting myself to Christians here because it's so rare for someone from any other religion to show up), particularly on another atheist forum I take part in, seem to assume we don't know anything about Christianity, and are quite taken aback to realise that quite a lot of us know a great deal about it from years of personal experience.

Other motivations are decidedly less acceptable: some Christians undoubtedly just want to needle and goad, and prick what they see as our smug arrogance. With what end in view? It can only be to make themselves feel better, since it is inconceivable that such an approach might have any more constructive outcome.

As for the ones who have perhaps prompted Steve's question, I am led by the timing of their arrival and their style of interaction with us to suspect both Hello and Whatthe of being members of the David Robertson Reinforcements, who have waded in to give his posts an echo.

What is very notable in such posts is the complete lack of willingness to engage in anything resembling real discussion. They post question after question that we are presumably meant to be unable to answer, but rather than engaging with the answers we give, they simply post new ones. Or vanish, of course.

And rule number one for this kind of visiting theist seems to be "Never answer any of the atheists' questions". Which seems very bizarre and further strengthens my conviction that their aim is simply to needle rather than to engage with us in any meaningful way. After all, if you wanted to convince someone that they were wrong and you were right, it's very hard to imagine how you could possibly achieve that without answering their questions, isn't it? Imagine a teacher who refused to answer his pupil's questions. Or a salesperson who just heaped abuse on the product you're using now, but refused to tell you anything about the one she wants you to replace it with.

I actually asked Hello a week or so ago what his purpose was in posting here. I also asked him (I think it was him - it may have been one of the others, they seem pretty interchangeable) to tell us exactly what he believed, and what evidence he based that belief on. Has he done either of those things? No, of course not.

One last thought: the books by Robertson and McGrath both sneeringly attempt to convey the impression that atheist arguments crumble the moment a Christian challenges them. It seems perfectly possible to me that some of the less questioning Christians would fall for this and therefore not be remotely prepared for what they find when they get here. This would account both for the low quality of their challenges in the first place, and their rapid retreat when they don't work.

256. Fleabytes

Comment #140796 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Veronad: But still my question hasn't yet been answered. What IS the protocol for having an article posted in this forum, about which members can comment?

I believe you followed the correct procedure by sending it to articles@richarddawkins.net, Veronad.

257. Fleabytes

Comment #140787 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Cartomancer: Hmm... It's certainly an interesting image:

It's not often I collapse into a helpless fit of giggles, but I have to confess that this post has done it to me!

Cartomancer, you're in sparkling form tonight.

258. Fleabytes

Comment #140776 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Cartomancer: Just think of them as big squirrels Paula - quick breeze block to the face and they'll be no trouble...

Are you talking about the Christians or the lions now, Cartomancer?
[/joke]

259. Fleabytes

Comment #140773 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Geoff: But lions have to eat, Paula...

May I just say how relieved I am that you inserted a comma in that sentence, Geoff?

260. Fleabytes

Comment #140767 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Richard M: Steve and Paula preparing to throw Christians and/or their ideas into the nearest waste disposal unit.

When I visited the theatre in Inverness recently as part of the preparations for Richard's event, someone (who shall remain nameless) jokingly said that the orchestra pit between the stage and the audience would be filled with lions on the day.

Steve will be pleased to know that, despite the historical precedents, I felt this would probably be taking the concept of "giving Christians a hard time" a bit far, even by my standards.

261. Fleabytes

Comment #140754 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Steve Z: I think it was just the unqualified phrase that made me uneasy, that is all.

Did you miss the ";-)" at the end? It was a flippant reply to a flippant comment.

But I'm still not sure you can give Christians' ideas a hard time without their feeling that you're giving them a hard time. For them, it boils down to the same thing in the end.

262. Fleabytes

Comment #140748 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Steve Z: You must mean "Christianity" is not picked on hard enough, not "Christians". Unless, of course, you are trying to reveal the kind of inner character Richard M was talking about, to counter your charming avatar... are you going to shock us further?

Well, at the risk of turning a facetious conversation into a serious one for a moment, I find it hard to imagine a way of giving Christianity a hard time that Christians would not experience as giving them a hard time. What is Christianity, anyway, but the beliefs and practices of large numbers of individual Christians?

I actually do stand by my tongue-in-cheek response to SRWB: I'm all for giving Christians a hard time. Not through the kind of persecution they love to imagine at our hands, and not through ad hominems; but purely and simply by actively challenging them about the absurdity of their beliefs. They still don't have a hard enough time because the rest of us still don't challenge them often enough.

263. Fleabytes

Comment #140727 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:49 pm

SRWB: To be more accurate, would we not include Judaism, Islam, and all other deistic religions here as well?

Yes, you're right.

Let's not always just pick on the poor Xians; they have it so hard. ;-)

Nowhere near hard enough, in my book ;-)

264. Fleabytes

Comment #140717 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Geoff: I can provide data that disprove your assertion, if you like...?

No, no need, Geoff. Re-reading Whatthe's post has sufficed to convince me of my error.

265. Fleabytes

Comment #140713 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Diacanu and Irate_Atheist are really a pair of lovely little old ladies who like nothing more than running jumble sales and doing the crossword in Woman's Weekly.

Richard Morgan, I think you might need to make some changes to Diacanu's musical portrait.

266. Fleabytes

Comment #140712 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 11:59 am

Cartomancer: Little old me? Well, you never really thought that Elvis was dead did you?

Well, I never will again, I can promise you that much.

267. Fleabytes

Comment #140706 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 11:52 am

Cartomancer: lovely post, very very funny. But you left someone out. Who is the real Cartomancer? We're all agog. :-)

268. Fleabytes

Comment #140704 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 11:49 am

Richard Morgan: I won't list them here (unless asked, by yourself) - all will be revealed in your musical portrait!

Uh-oh. I am all fear and trepidation! No, I am most definitely not asking. Will I even dare listen to your composition, after that??

PS. I saw your request for assistance on the Crossing the Divide thread and I'm not ignoring it - just doing lots of other things today and don't really have time to work through another thread thoroughly enough to be able to chime in. I'll take a look later or tomorrow, if I can.

269. Fleabytes

Comment #140690 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 10:58 am

Steve Z: I am shocked, I really am :)

Ah, Steve, you surely weren't taken in by this innocent-looking exterior, were you? ;-)

270. Fleabytes

Comment #140673 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 10:05 am

Whatthe..?!: I'm beginning to see how you got your name.

Firstly, quit the David Robertson impersonation and stop referring to atheists as "disciples". The fact that you are using the term entirely inappropriately might be forgivable if you were being witty and/or original; but you're not. This tactic has been used ad nauseam by those who wish to suggest (rather oddly, it must be said) that atheism is another religion and that its arguments therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. If you continue with it we shall know that you actively seek to be both wrong and boring.

So, this is your great explanation, is it? "Everthing which has a beginning has a cause". So hey presto! Your God necessarily didn't have a beginning! QED! Magic!! Wonderful!! Bollocks!!!! Oops, did I just say that? Your problem, Whatthe...?! is that simply producing alleged solutions out of a hat does not make them true. You simply cannot sensibly posit an intelligent being that has always existed, because by everything we actually do know about the universe (and I'm using the word "know" in its real sense of "backed up by evidence", rather than in its religious sense of "Well, I certainly hope this is right because it would be so very convenient and would save me having to actually learn anything") such a being falls into the Impossible category. As ever, of course, if you have anything remotely approaching evidence to support your view that such a being exists, we will be delighted to hear it. But we've been down this particular blind alley before.

A God that had no beginning is necessary for one thing and one thing only: Christianity. It is simply not required for anything else. It doesn't matter which branch of science you look at - biology, chemistry, physics, Earth Science, cosmology, .... - we simply see NOTHING that requires your eternal, uncaused God for its explanation. Sure, there are gaps in our knowledge - but even the Vatican has acknowledged the danger of depending on those as refuges for God. Our knowledge of the universe is growing at an incredible rate and the claim that it all "necessarily" requires an intelligent, uncaused being to explain it is most emphatically NOT borne out by what we see when we explore it. To quote Victor Stenger, "It all looks precisely the way we would expect it to look if there were no God."

Your other problem is that, just because something seems "the height of absurdity" absolutely does not mean it must be untrue. The universe positively teems with things that seem "the height of absurdity", but for all that we have evidence that shows them to be true. Quantum mechanics is the obvious example of this: even Christians would find it hard to come up with greater absurdities than QM apparently represents but, unlike Christianity, predictions based on QM absurdities can be demonstrated to be true and accurate to within infinitessimally small margins of error. But it's not just QM. Evolution struck many people as "the height of absurdity", too, for a long time: but is now supported by more evidence than practically any other scientific theory you care to mention.

So the argument from absurdity is simply the argument from your own scientific ignorance. Every other phenomenon of complex life has been accounted for in terms of the evolution from simple to complex. To suggest that such an explanation cannot account for human consciousness is just your wishful thinking.

And I see that elsewhere in your post you're calling Paul Davies as a witness for your side of the argument. I think you'd be wise to check his views out more carefully before doing so!

271. Fleabytes

Comment #140593 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:46 am

Richard Morgan: You know what I'm finding here on this "soul-less" atheist site?

I'm finding friendship, intellectual exchange,amusing little cat-fights that don't last long, the occasional dick-head, inspiration, encouragement, laughter, compassion, understanding, acceptance, people willing to doubt, to apologise, to ask for forgiveness from time to time, and a great community spirit. You know, people basically pulling in the same direction.
Hey,why am I not missing the religious groups?

You're spot on, Richard. This is a fabulous site - and so very much more than just a forum for debate (though it's that too, and miles better than any other I've seen).

No wonder certain visiting Christians dislike it so much and go to such lengths to malign it.

On which subject, I'm not entirely sure such a person would actually deserve to be the subject of your musical inspirations but I'm secretly (well, probably not so secretly now!) glad that you decided otherwise - that's another great composition you've put online!

272. Fleabytes

Comment #140588 by Paula Kirby on March 8, 2008 at 12:34 am

Steve Z: I wonder if we could encourage use of the word "fora" for this? It is far more beautful than "forums".

What a very nice suggestion. The term for both together - i.e. the places where we have our conversations AND the people having them - could then be the Fora and Fauna. I think this would be the very opposite of ugsome.

273. Fleabytes

Comment #140475 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 1:24 pm

And another thing ....

I have just found this on one of the Open University's online conferences. It was written by someone who occasionally posts here too - Magrat Garlick (at least, that's her RD.net name) - and, as is her wont, she encapsulates a powerful argument in just a couple of sentences. Magrat - I hope you don't mind my re-posting it here.

You might be interested on the survey on this website. It was an attempt to ascertain God's stance on same-sex marriage through prayer. Unfortunately, it is not very conclusive, since of the 49 people who received an answer from God, 26 were told that he approved and 23 were told that he disapproved. The only consistent finding of the survey was that not one single person received an answer that conflicted with his or her own personal opinion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_pra1.htm

274. Fleabytes

Comment #140441 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 10:48 am

SG: Here's "fundy" evidence for you:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=142

Yup, this one's good:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/view.aspx?id=149
That ol' Christian love for humanity at work again.

275. Fleabytes

Comment #140438 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 10:43 am

Richard Morgan: http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes
There is already one portrait plus the music for RD and his daughter comet-watching.

They're both excellent, Richard!

276. Fleabytes

Comment #140433 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 10:20 am

I see a problem with it. It implies someone or something at the top.

Well, the Christians think that's God.

And the selling isn't just about money - it's about spreading the word. Every believer is enjoined to "witness" and to share the good news with non-believers, who in turn are enjoined to do the same.

277. Fleabytes

Comment #140428 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 9:45 am

Epeeist: Careful - wee flea/clearthinker questioned my rationality for saying something similar.

Hmmm, it'd be tough, obviously, but I think my self-esteem would probably recover from his low opinion of my rationality, given enough time.

Actually I claimed that religion was a pyramid selling scheme.

And how! Great analogy!

278. Fleabytes

Comment #140416 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 9:21 am

Frankus: And I know this because I believe it. Because I believe it I can see a greater truth that is evidence of God in the world.

Oh yes, this one's a classic. "Just believe it - and then you won't have any difficulty believing it". It's amazing how often you hear Christians come out with variations on this particular theme, though I have real difficulty imagining that it ever actually works for them. Imagine a secondhand car dealer: "Just buy it, guv'nor, then you'll see that the fact it's a rusty old heap of junk just isn't a problem."

279. Fleabytes

Comment #140415 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 9:16 am

Steve: I don't believe so, although the rate this thread is growing, it may have been posted and swamped out

No, I've checked. This was his last post:

2854. Comment #137593 by Artful_Dodger on March 3, 2008 at 8:34 am
Fine Steve, but is this the right thread for it?

The "Fine Steve" referred to your request to deal with the question of how he knows what's metaphor and what's literal ... so he kind of got our hopes up. Still, perhaps he's been busy.

280. Fleabytes

Comment #140392 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 8:44 am

SRWB: For Xians, how does that jibe with the whole story of Jesus? Didn't he walk among us and intervene and leave evidence, like dead fig trees, overflowing baskets of bread and fish, crucifixions, etc.?

The Christian response to that one, in my experience is, "So there you go, you've had your evidence. You can't expect God to go on giving you more just because that's not good enough for you."

281. Fleabytes

Comment #140387 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 8:30 am

Frankus1122: There is 'natural' evidence left; it is the feeling of contentment and joy that comes from 'knowing' God loves me. It is the filter that God provides that allows me to see His divine intervention in the lives of the people around me.

Yes, this is the other common argument: that subjective feelings constitute evidence. This one is easily dispensed with, though, since few Christians would accept that a Hindu's feelings of contentment and joy are evidence for the truth of Hinduism, or that my feelings of outraged horror at some aspects of Christian teaching are evidence for the truth of atheism. Nor would my feeling that the bloke across the road is a bit creepy be deemed sufficient evidence to convict him of murder.

282. Fleabytes

Comment #140374 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 8:07 am

Dr Benway: So say those who stone their daughters for holding hands with the wrong boy.

Indeed. And you'll know me well enough by now to know I'm not trying to defend their argument.

I think Epeeist's and ScottishGeologist's responses above are spot on: as soon as someone tries to claim that their supernatural being intervenes in the natural world, then the demand for natural evidence must apply. Though in the world of make-believe theology, we're never safe from the reply that an all-powerful supernatural being that doesn't want to leave natural evidence because it wants us to believe in it through faith, can intervene naturally WITHOUT leaving evidence, blah blah blah.

283. Fleabytes

Comment #140356 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 7:36 am

Dr Benway: religious claims must be subject to the same rules of evidence we apply in all other areas of collective understanding.

I agree, Dr Benway, I soooooo agree. But you'll be familiar with the theists' response, which is that it isn't appropriate to demand natural evidence for supernatural claims. How do you respond to that one?

284. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140303 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 5:53 am

Epeeist: Not just wooter - can we say "dead baby".

Yes, indeed. Wee Flea's "dead baby" comment was made for a different purpose than Wooter's: not to celebrate suffering, but to suggest that atheists are indifferent to it. But the glib exploitation of human suffering and the shocking lack of empathy with the sufferers are precisely the same.

Just been listening to R4 lunchtime news (great being a homeworker) and a woman saying that we need a bioethics commission (agreed) and that it should include representatives from faith groups. Why is it assumed that they have cornered the market on morality and that any function that requires ethical decisions to be made should include them?

I just don't know. The more I think about it, and the more I see of the "moral" attitudes of the religious, the more bizarre I find it. The only explanation I can think of is the tendency to go on doing things the way they have always been done, rather than to ask ourselves if it's really still the best way.

Given that the subject matter in this case is likely to be covered in the press tomorrow, perhaps it would be a good question to raise in a Letter to the Editor?

285. Fleabytes

Comment #140287 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 5:28 am

Steve Z: We only need to compare the complexity of a designer an the universe at its origin. We can get all the complexity after that for "free", from the laws of physics.

But if the universe really did have a designer, then presumably that designer has to have been responsible for the laws of physics too? If the laws of physics mean that complexity must (or could) result, doesn't that suggest that the designer must have had at least enough complexity to understand the complexity of the laws he'd designed?

Or perhaps the designer wasn't aware what he was getting himself into, and didn't realise how powerful his laws of physics would prove to be?

In which case - hardly an example of good design!

Sorry, just thinking aloud.

286. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140284 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 5:20 am

Philip: Sort yourself out Wooter and stop enjoying people's suffering and actually learn to care PROPERLY for once in your life.

Well done, Philip. You are normally the mildest-mannered of contributors and if anyone round here can be depended on to respond to theist nonsense in kind, conciliatory (but still robust) terms, it is you. But there comes a point where mild and polite are not enough: some attitudes are SO disgusting that we SHOULD shout about them and draw attention to them in the strongest possible terms. Wooter has displayed precisely such an attitude - and you have dealt with it as it deserved.

When I abandoned Christianity myself I remained utterly unhostile towards it for quite a long time afterwards. It was only as I increasingly became embroiled in debates with Christians that I began to see how utterly repugnant so many of its arguments and fundamental beliefs are. Its attitude to suffering is particularly obscene: ONLY a mind corrupted by religion could see it as anything but something to be avoided, both for ourselves and for others. It's bad enough when people limit their "help" to praying for those who are suffering. To go the extra mile and actually thank God for it and see it as some kind of blessing, is just warped and twisted beyond sane human comprehension.

Anger is the only appropriate response.

287. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #140264 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 4:50 am

* McGrath thread stands up and applauds Paula Kirby on reaching 4,000 *

Well, thank you, Peacebeuponme. I'd just like to say that I don't feel a day over 90.

288. Fleabytes

Comment #140254 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 4:34 am

the_assayer: Thoughts?

You're right: it's self-contradictory. Many many pages ago a poster called Whatthe...?! tried to argue that we could only account for human intelligence through the actions of an intelligent designer - i.e. God. I asked him how this intelligent designer had come by ITS intelligence ... and, surprise, surprise, we haven't heard from him since.

289. Fleabytes

Comment #140239 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 4:16 am

Clodhopper: I didn't mean to hit 4K Paula *sobs* *beats chest* mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa

Well, I'm delighted that somebody did it! Of course I was hoping the thread would reach 4k - and I have truly appreciated the way so many people here have thrown themselves into it and helped it along too.

Seriously, you've all responded so generously, both to the initial article and to the subsequent announcement of my interview with Richard, here on the thread and via PM too. I really have been touched. Thank you.

Maybe you should stop now, though? If you go on behaving like this, you'll start giving atheists a good name, and then where will we be? ;-)

290. Fleabytes

Comment #140225 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 4:04 am

Steve Z: I think we should hold off, and leave the next post for Paula, by the way.

Oh I couldn't possibly ....

291. Fleabytes

Comment #140216 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 3:59 am

SG: site:richarddawkins.net plus whatever it is you are looking for

Thanks for that - should prove useful.

Still no sign of clearthinker....

Please don't tell me anyone's truly missing him. I can't be the only one to have noticed that we don't need his comments to get the conversation flowing on here!

292. Fleabytes

Comment #140203 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 3:43 am

Steve Z: It allows for easier searching, and printing.

Easier searching would certainly be very welcome. It would be great to be able to search for particular subjects across the whole of the website. Unless I'm missing something, I think the search facility that we have now only searches the current page. Of course, it would be a HUGE task for a website this size, so it may well be a completely unrealistic wish on my part!

293. Fleabytes

Comment #140195 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 3:36 am

Steve Z: That way no-one need feel guilty about talking about any subject.

I'm not sure there's any need for guilt in any case. This is a website about atheism. We can either take a very narrow view of that and agree that there's no reason to believe in gods and leave it at that since it's all been said ... or we can take a broad view and welcome the fact that, having rejected "Goddidit" as the ultimate answer, we are free to explore all the other possible answers.

Our ultimate subject is "life, the universe and everything in the absence of gods". It encompasses physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, cosmology, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, literature, art, history, anthropology, linguistics, economics, politics, ethics, sociology, humour, technology, and probably 1000 other topics as well. In fact, it's hard to think of any intelligent discussion that could possibly be OFF-topic.

I was thinking about the longevity of this particular thread and concluded that its topic - the arguments of theists - is itself so wide-ranging that almost any response is going to be relevant to some aspect of it. Most thread topics are more specific and will probably tend not to wander as much as this one.

So I really don't think it's an issue, Steve.

294. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140159 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 2:41 am

Just saw him in Tempe at ASU today....awesome! Very funny,I may add

and

Just saw him in Tempe as well! Very, very funny!

Runlinds and AndyD, that's great. Humour is an important way of getting a message across. Can you tell me which bits made people laugh most? I'd be interested to know.

295. Fleabytes

Comment #140105 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 1:01 am

Steve: I'd understood (ahem - that may not be the right word, now I come to think of it) Stenger's argument slightly differently. He takes issue with those who would tweak the value of ONE constant and then declare that the whole universe falls apart as a result; and argues that if we don't take each constant in isolation but tweak ALL of them, a universe compatible with life still emerges. Consequently he argues that the claim that there is only one possible combination of constants that is compatible with life, is wrong.

Have I misunderstood?

EDIT. I see the posts are coming in so fast that this point was pretty much answered whilst I was making it.

296. Fleabytes

Comment #140098 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 12:54 am

Clodhopper: What (the hell) are daemonic attendents FOR? Gin & Tonix?

No, this is hell, remember? It'll have to be Dubonnet and lemonade.

297. Fleabytes

Comment #140081 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 12:44 am

Cartomancer: Some of the pieces might be missing, but this is Catholic hell - there'll be plenty of Kings, Queens and Bishops wandering round to make up the shortfall...

Whereas in the hell of the money-raking tele-evangelists there'll just be vast numbers of pawns.

298. Fleabytes

Comment #140067 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 12:29 am

Steve Z: (By the way, I realise now how silly it was to be concerned about hijacking Paula's thread with a review of Vox Day, when I have been regularly diverting it in the direction of physics and philosophy (with the help of others!))

But physics and philosophy are not hijackers when it comes to discussing atheism. They're co-pilots.

299. Fleabytes

Comment #140062 by Paula Kirby on March 7, 2008 at 12:22 am

Flying Goose: In brief, we don't know and we cannot know THE world, absolutely. We know only OUR world, a world shaped by our ideas, seen from our perspective, and built by us with our needs in view.

The problem with this as an approach in my view, is that it leads too many people to the conclusion that, because we can't know everything, we should accept and believe anything.

I would argue (though admittedly from my instincts, rather than from science or philospohy) that there IS such a thing as objective truth about the universe (even if that objective truth were to be that I've just imagined it all). Our challenge is to discover what it is, to the best of our admittedly limited ability. And to do that, we simply have no choice but to use the best tools we have available to us. Postmodernist "yes-but-all-truth-is-subjective" thinking hasn't shown itself to be one of them as yet, and I can't really see that it will in the future either.

The fact that we can formulate a range of different possible explanations for various phenomena doesn't mean that all those explanations are equally substantiated or valid.

Humans are indeed subjective beings, and this does of course influence the way we tend to interpret the world, but there are ways round this. One of the strengths of Scientific Method is that it tackles this problem head-on: subjectivity is designed out of the investigative process, and objectivity is designed in. It's the best we have and all of us - even the ones who would prefer to think of the universe in semi-mystical terms - enjoy, and depend on, its fruits every day of our lives.

300. Fleabytes

Comment #139816 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 2:23 pm

I am not insecure - people have already found the review as it is in progress, and seem to have found it useful. I meant of interest here, on this thread.

Just put it back, Steve, there's a good chap, and then I won't have to accuse you in public of fishing for compliments!! ;-)

Seriously: it's a response to a flea book. Where else should it go? Do we have to start a petition?