301. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73750 by Veronique on September 26, 2007 at 4:16 am

Jesus fucking Christ!!

What on earth is going on with this thread?

I cannot believe this stuff. All I did was read Dennett for a couple of days, post a little here and there and now THIS!!!

Richard stop! You can't leave this site damn you. I haven't received your card for my birthday yet, don't you dare leave:-). I don't care how far away France is, I want my promised card!!:-).

Prufrock, please chill. People are different, that's all. And Richard's Welsh, you know. Don't take it personally, please. I have blown my top badly several times on this site. I have abused other posters. Heat of the moment stuff. I get taken to task, I just have another red wine:-). And I am Australian to boot.

I know this is not a rational post BTW:-). I am not being logical, I just don't want anything like this happening here. This is a disaster and unnecessary. Check out Chaser's War on Everything. It makes all seriousness disappear. At least for 30 minutes:-).

Please boys, settle down, otherwise I will have to smack you both and send you to your rooms. So there!!

I don't know how to indicate the blowing of kisses to you both. Humph
Cheers
V aka Veronica Guy:-)

302. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73727 by Veronique on September 26, 2007 at 1:43 am

Liveliest Crib

Don't you mean tripolar?:-) hahaha

Cheers
V

303. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73726 by Veronique on September 26, 2007 at 1:38 am

Mr C

I watched the trailer of that doco. Neither of my local video stores has it. Looks very frightening, but I wouldn't mind seeing it. Not sure that I want to buy it, though an argument could be made for having it in my personal lending library:-).

Got any suggestions?
V

304. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73720 by Veronique on September 26, 2007 at 1:23 am

MattInOz

I live in tiny Mullumbimby on the North East Coast and my tenant in the other half of my house is a charismatic Christian. I think they are Baptist fundies. I know he goes to a church in Byron sometimes.

I have tried to ask him about what he believes and why and he's okay for a bit but then he becomes agitated. I asked him once whether he would like to read Bryson's Short History.... He declined after looking at the Contents page, because there was a chapter on the age of the earth. He says, however, that he has a great respect for science:-) but evolution is just a theory.

I started to explain what a scientific theory actually was; he got agitated and walked back inside his door. Poor blighter had a heart attack last week and is still in hospital. I don't want to agitate him any more now!! He's 70 in a couple of months. He has been a fundamentalist since 1963 and described finding a church that preached this as 'coming home'.

He is the first fundamentalist Christian I have ever known (well, 'know' is probably the wrong word!). Incomprehensible stuff. He is not willing to see anything except his fantasy that he will be wafted up onto (into?) clouds with Jesus. And he prays for me!! I reckon I could do a George Carlin on this one:-).

Good luck with your 'younger' acquaintance:-). He has had 8 years (that you know of) in which to arrive at his deluded state. That's a fair amount of time; I am not at all convinced that you will get through, although I understand that you have to try:-).

Keep us updated with your 'progress'.

Cheers
V

305. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73710 by Veronique on September 25, 2007 at 11:53 pm

MattInOz

I think it was on the Leprechology thread that someone said You just have to pray to God until you are insane enough to be saved.

Robert Maynard always gives good advice to questions like these:-). not sucking up Robert, it's true!! And BTW, I think that evangelical amnesia (great term) is what happens to every fundy religite who posts on these threads. For dozens and dozens of posts they say the same thing over and over again. They partially concede minor points and then forget that they have done so in the next post.

It's the faulty reasoning that is hard to get through. There is often that 'I used to be an atheist but' that, as RD mentions is said as a special pleading for more street cred. If you haven't already, listen to RD reading the new preface for TGD on the boat to the Galapagos Islands. The link is on the home page.

Dennett is great (I am reading him myself), but rational arguments don't go far in the religion-addled brain. The religious filter is firmly in place. Listen to Alistair McGrath trying to debate RD in the uncut interview. I am staggered at the way this smart theologian can commit intellectual dishonesty time and again and not realise it. The second time I listened to it, I really, really watched McGrath's facial expressions. He had no idea what he was giving away to the viewer when he spoke.

People like this have surrendered reason for faith. The emotionaI need must have much more pull than the desire to understand properly. The need for certainty is too strong.

I think it is also interesting that fundy religites can't even read anything that doesn't prop up their beliefs. That surprises me – maybe I am wrong about the strength of these needs. Not being able to read anything that isn't religious seems to indicate a tenuous hold rather than a strong one.

I am starting to ramble. If it's any help, I have difficulty talking to them as well:-), but I haven't close friends of this particular ilk. I don't really understand the religious brain, as you can tell:-).

Cheers
V

(Edit) I like the 'Pyramid Selling Scheme', hahaha.

(Edit 2) Welcome AKBob

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

Comment #73638 by Veronique on September 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm

85. Comment #73459 by Northern Bright

Thanks for the link to PZ. I don't get over there often enough. I loved this one:

Zeus was like the awesome dude you hung out with in college. Jehovah is the one you meet at a twenty year reunion and say, "you've changed, man."

I listened to the Religion Report on Radio National this morning and Crittendon was talking to the Rev. Steve Chalk from the UK about the relevance of religion today and in the near future. Chalk laughed and said that he thought religion had moved inside, was only talking to itself and was singing itself to death.

LOL

Nice creed NB

Billy, Revcort was on the Leprechology thread where he came across CHeard hahahaha. Most enjoyable. Livened things up considerably (not to say that it was dull befor the advent of CH who added just a fillip to the debate).

Oh and Benway sorry for my comment on whichever thread it was:-). It wasn't you I was asking about cancers. It was dr in the house. Sorry.

Great thread this one
Cheers
V

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

Comment #73470 by Veronique on September 25, 2007 at 3:55 am

86. Comment #73466 by BillySands

What about eternity with Revcort? Did you not read his comments?? They would have raised your ire to an unprecedeted level. Hehehehe.

Cheers
Vxx

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

Comment #73411 by Veronique on September 25, 2007 at 1:26 am

74. Comment #73406 by Philip1978

Fuck, thank Quetz for that wipes brow, swishes sweat onto the floor.

I'd hate to be disrespectful - you know that!! 6pm is my non-Quetz hour. Red rules!!

Vxx

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

Comment #73403 by Veronique on September 25, 2007 at 1:08 am

72. Comment #73401 by Philip1978

Do you think he walks away angry? I tend to think that he does a religious duck under the bridge and comes back without understanding what he posted before.

Maybe I am wrong:-)

Love you honey
V - Quetz is out the window now - it's past 6pm and I am drinking a red. Do you think that Quetz would like to incorporate stronger brew after his admittedly constrained hours of tea brewing?

Just a thought (to accommodate me, of course!!)
Vxx

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

Comment #73397 by Veronique on September 25, 2007 at 12:46 am

68. Comment #73394 by Philip1978

I posted before I read your comment. Well done!!

Cheers
Vxx

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

Comment #73396 by Veronique on September 25, 2007 at 12:42 am

I love the SOD:

Fundamentalism. 1923. Strict adherence to traditional orthodox tenets (eg. the literal inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith: opposed to liberalism and modernism. Hence Fundamentalist, an adherent of f.; also as adj.

I don't know how an atheist can be lumped into the fundamentalist camp. I can see that the SOD definition can be extended to encompass literal Islam; there are as many literal Islamists as there are literal Christians and literal Zionists – maybe not so much with that lot.

If you go back with the SOD to its definition of fundamental, it's a bit different. Its etymology is ME, Fr or late L.

As an adj. 1. Of or pertaining to the foundation basis or groundwork. 2. Serving as the foundation or base. Now only in immaterial applications…..

There's more; however this will probably do for our purposes.

Now I am not all that acquainted with the specific arguments and specific examples of Darwin's (and Wallace's) theories. I am getting there; I am reading Dennett on Darwin at the moment. What I do understand is that all the argumentation that proliferated after the publishing of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life had to do with the horror people felt about being tied to the animal kingdom as distinct from a preciously supernatural genesis, ie, humans are 'different' from other animals (mammals?)and 'created' by a god. Well, I have always considered that hubris.

What I cannot get my head around is that people who reject supernatural beginnings for life because there is a far simpler explanatory theory that has yet to be disproved, can be dubbed fundamentalists. My understanding is that from 1859 onwards, amazing scientific research (unfalsified as yet) had led us through fossilised remains in the exact order one would expect them to be found geologically, through Crick and Watson in 1953, through dear Francis Collins' human genome project and an enormous amount of evidence that supports dear Darwin and Wallace.

RD comes along in 1976 and writes The Selfish Gene. This bloke is a neo-Darwinist. He makes very substantial arguments for his work. He is hailed (to the chagrin of creationists) as providing an excellent modern exposition of how evolution actually works. Contentious? Well yes, but not really. He writes more; he becomes the excellent communicator that the rest of us lay people can actually understand. Charles Simonyi knew what he was doing when he funded the chair at Oxford. Gravy bless his cotton socks!!

What I do understand (and everyone else with one jot of common sense) is that the history of our ancestry is written within our genetic makeup, described by Crick and Watson and painstakingly developed by Collins and his team.

In layman's terms, I knew this from my study of foetal development, some 45 years ago (it has grown since then!). It was observable and obvious common sense. Collins has added so much to our understanding. But in gross terms it has been observable since we were able to track foetal development.

To get back to the use of the term fundamentalism. Neo-Darwinism has grown, developed, researched and, importantly, updated Darwin's and Wallace's original theses. I suspect this is called science:-). 150 years seems small change in this remarkable and growing understanding of how this planet evolved. We have so much more to learn:-).

There is no way anyone can apply the word fundamentalism to science. If anyone attempts to apply that word to a non-belief in a supernatural intervention by a supernatural 'intelligence' that purportedly clicked a finger, or six, to bring into being a tiny, wee planet with specific human egocentric and geocentric hubris, then all I can really say, is that this planet is one mental asylum. Unfortunately it appears as though the patients are in charge of the asylum. This, to me, is a worry.

Cheers
V

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

Comment #73377 by Veronique on September 24, 2007 at 10:22 pm

623. Comment #73347 by CHeard

This is utter levity, but you may enjoy the send-ups. I don't know you so I don't know what your sense of humour runs to. So I am apologising in advance if these offend you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42p2SO5wQag

I want to thank you also for your posts. I know I have before – just reiterating it:-).

Cheers
V

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

Comment #73132 by Veronique on September 24, 2007 at 8:21 am

56. Comment #73124 by black wolf

put this < and type 'blockquote' and then this >. Copy and paste what you want to quote then at the end put this < and type '/blockquote' and then this >.

Should help. I learned this so we all can. I do not consider myself familiar with html codes.

You can find the codes after the words 'Post a Comment' above the comment box. It's in bold - Comment Posting Guidelines.

Cheers
V

314. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73130 by Veronique on September 24, 2007 at 8:01 am

22. Comment #73121 by Yorker

I don't have a problem with your proposal. I started looking at the link posted by DNAtheist and was bored within a couple of minutes, very amateurish. It didn't grab me. And that is the art of TV - to grab.

You know, it doesn't have to be just an atheist programme. It could be a consciousness-raising programme that encompasses much more and very interesting bits and pieces.

You would have to find funding for it, I assume. The pilot would have to be well put together properly, professionally with snappy bits of information on all manner of things including your suggestions and extending them a bit (no particular order);

*current news pertaining to reality
*archaeology showing no evidence of biblical treks (for instance)
*philosophy as it relates to the real world
*history – myths and exaggerations
*chemistry updates
*biological advances
*biochemical research updates
*neurological studies, theories and published views and results
*the status of stem-cell research throughout the world
*politics and religious politics as seen from a rational perspective
*speciation in island geography
*what's happening with plate tectonics
*latest debunk of silly alternative medicine
*state of theocracy as a desired outcome
*updated list of now extinct species
*list of severely threatened species due to human interference
*a reading or short lecture by a well-known atheist, philosopher, cosmologist, etc.
*updated diminishing percentage of the world covered by forests
*updated global population figures
*what overseas aid has conditions attached to the largesse
*what's happening with the ice-cap melt
*stats on the members of different religious groups
*what island population has had to relocate due to salinity and rising ocean heights

Everything, Yorker, just everything. And always from the point of view of rationalism. It would probably be only a ½ hour show. It would have to be tight, well-presented and in the sort of sound-bite manner that is the way people have become accustomed to see such TV. The presenter would have to be a personable, neutral type of person . An 'I am just delivering the news' type. Non confrontational, friendly etc etc.

It could be done. It would be interesting, because it can be made interesting, because it is interesting.

Now to get it off the ground:-). Don't be so negative Benway - tell me about cancer incidence that I asked you on another thread-Revcort's takeover, I think:-)

Cheers
V

315. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72664 by Veronique on September 22, 2007 at 6:33 am

2404. Comment #72553 by newatheist

Mama Mia, let me go
Everything matters to meeeeee

Hahahaha.
I am an antitheist.

And I live my life with integrity. No cheating, no interminable theorising, no ducking issues, no wankeroo. I have an impact on my local community because I say exactly what I think. And no one ever gets marginalised in my view. And no one gets let off the hook, including me.

I don't ever exclude people's views because they differ from my own. I merely argue with the differers (now there's a descriptive word – I claim the coinage!!) and expect a decent argument back. I have yet to hear a decent argument back. I hear all manner of coffee table arguments and they move me not one jot – especially when I reflect that such jottings rely on the efforts of another class of people who supply the coffee that allows such jottings:-).

Let me cogitate and deliver unto you lesser beings, the fruits of my cogitation (sips latte or cappuccino). I have thought long and hard about this (whatever the subject may be) and (sip) this is my considered response (looks into pale blue yonder and does an Alain de Botton impression). Serious intake of breath before launching into monologue that impresses the masses.

I am having great fun with Yossi. You remember that I spoke about meeting him and wasn't sure from where he came. Well, yes he's an Israeli who sounds like a Frenchman. Just doesn't have the same sense of humour:-). His wife does!! She sends him up all the time and he takes personal umbrage. Very entertaining.

Indeed, I have talked to him and told him about Steve99's post to me on another thread that tried to explain to me the religious mind and guilt. Steve did well and I have thanked him. Yossi did well too. He put religious guilt into a context that was immediately understandable in an everyday setting. I learn so much from you all and now from Yossi. This is GOOD!!

PaulEmecz has taken argumentation to a high degree and goes nowhere. 2404 comments, my god. No wonder Goldy and Corylus and others have left that thread (well, sort of).

I was only going to check this thread out now and then. It's then not now. I am bored with the reiteration of argumentation that is circular that highlights Paul's posts. Yawn.

He can cogitate his life away – it will still be a yawn for me.

Hehehehe
V

316. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #72619 by Veronique on September 22, 2007 at 12:39 am

28. Comment #72330 by magetoo

Hang on here. What if, when he enlisted, he didn't know of the mandatory Christian belief system being tied to his enlistment? He enlisted before he realised that he would be pressured to become a 'born again' Christian? He was suckered before he knew it.

I am sure that no recruiting office would cite Christian evangelism as a criterion for enlistment! NOW, having been confronted with this by his (carefully selected by the shrub and others) superior, he is affronted. And so he should be. And he is taking some reparative action. And so he should. Good on him and the 5,000 others just going into the legal pipelines. May they create a constitutional and legal battle. No one else is getting close to testing this crisis that is burgeoning in the US.

MagratGarlick - I think I know what you are saying. It's all good. jimbob was saying that it was Bush 1, I think you just misread him. Of course Bush Jnr should be made to articulate what it is that is patriotic. Quite right.

Cheers
V

317. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72615 by Veronique on September 21, 2007 at 11:43 pm

I am warming to Bill Maher. I have watched quite a number of his TV appearances. When he's in control of his show, he lets fly. When he's being interviewed, he can be over run by the interviewer.

BUT, he's out there and that's what is needed. He has a voice and an audience. More power to him!! We need everyone we can get.

It's interesting. Some other Antipodean mentioned that we haven't got anything like Maher down here. It will worry me if we do get a Maher here. It will mean that we have slid into the Slough of Despair. And that will be a disaster.

Cheers
V

318. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72612 by Veronique on September 21, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Sorry for this; I know everyone has moved on:-) And I haven't read the whole thread yet.

13. Comment #72153 by Bruno

"Let's face it, it is easier for most of us to hold a clear but inaccurate image of what we think God is, rather than to live with the discomfort of not being able to pin God down precisely."

Most interesting sentence, in my opinion, in the whole article. Maybe it's me, but wow, I got to that sentence and found myself reading it over and over. Is it just me, or contained within or between the words of that sentence lies the psychology behind the need for belief in the supernatural.

I think this may account for the intricate and magical rituals that accompany beliefs in the supernatural. Those rituals feed the need, which is inchoate, by positive action that, over time, becomes iconic. Skinner is merely saying, time to have another look at the icons. The belief doesn't go, because it's emotionally driven; it merely changes to reflect that weird word the 'Zeitgeist'. And that has a local flavour to it. So we are looking down the line of more fractured belief systems. This is pretty normal given our history.

I think PrimeNumbers is right. The belief in the supernatural devolves through time and education into just the idea of god. These Abrahamic religious myths have been around for a couple of thousand years now. It is possible to see the horrific stuff happening around the world now as the death throes of the old spiritual order. I don't know whether you can trace back the overthrow of one set of myths by another as also accompanied by physical strife. But, regardless, this one is very, very dangerous.

23. Comment #72197 by antialiasis

No, you are not alone. I agree with you and I would prefer Christians to be like this, muddled as they are. This is a person I would talk to about belief and faith. I don't know how far it would get, but I am game:-).

I could never talk to Alistair McGrath, by comparison. Having watched him, twice now, debating RD, I have changed my opinion about him but could never be bothered talking to him.

It's all very interesting. Please can I be pedantic for a bit? Its = possession. It's = allision. Crawls under pedantic rock and sneakily has a glass of wine while smacking pedantic typing fingers and wrist:-)

Cheers
V

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

Comment #72560 by Veronique on September 21, 2007 at 4:38 pm

520. Comment #72422 by dr in the house

Hey Doc – a 50% chance of us getting a cancer of some sort? I read somewhere that about 30% of us will die from a cancer. Does that mean that cures and remissions make up the difference? Or am I wrong in what I am sure I read, but can't recall where?

Can you help me here? I know that there are apparent genetic implications as well and this sort of research is bounding along. And there are environmental triggers as well.

On religious debate and the number of posts, have you checked out the McGrath comment thread? Last time I checked, it was well over 2,300. And even Goldy has given up on that lot:-). And he's a much nicer person than I could ever be.

521. Comment #72424 by steve99

Thank you – I think the idea of guilt is what I term as reprehensible abuse of people's minds. I didn't realise that even when you walk away from a faith, that the guilt can remain. You have given me a deeper understanding of what the Jesuits mean when they say that after training a child until he is 7 that he is then so embroiled in this guilt/love, as to be in a mental prison. For some, there is obviously no escape.

To actively seek such a prison (which is what McGrath said he did as an Oxford student) is to deliberately surrender reason for the consolation of an idea that has so much baggage attached to it as to render it evil. It is the same as running joyfully towards the handcuffs of slavery. This is why it is so incomprehensible to me. The number of people like McGrath, who say that they left behind reason to slavishly follow an unevidenced doctrine, boggles my mind.

The literal believers (both the Islamists and fundamental Christians) feel they are engaged in a religious war. Just look at the articles and videos posted on this site. They both want theocracies that constrain our behaviour far more than any secular society has done. In that sense they want to 'force' the rest of us into their restraint jackets and padded cells and call it 'life under god's rules'.

And people wonder why I express fear and loathing? I don't think I am being over the top with my sense of horror at what is happening around the world.

This week's religi-board quote is from Carl Sagan:

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Thanks steve99, you inspired me to dig that one out:-).

558. Comment #72511 by CHeard

I may think you are deluded:-), however if all religites were as mild as you, Richard Harries and my Catholic friend, Jenny I wouldn't be so frightened. I can be perplexed about why you believe what you do but not feel so threatened as I do by the burgeoning wing-nuts that seek control. Please reflect on what RD and Harris say about religious moderates giving legitimacy to the fundamentalists and their stated agenda.

My best. Cheers
V

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

Comment #72418 by Veronique on September 21, 2007 at 2:51 am

512. Comment #72399 by steve99

I don't think I have commented on one of your posts and you seem mighty fine to me.

I have no idea what it is like to come from a god-believing background. I was, to my immense and later understanding joy, sequestered from this wankeroo. I am immensely grateful for my uncluttered upbringing.

BillySands has made a valiant (and successful) attempt to address my heartfelt queries regarding belief in a god-driven reality from which you guys have extricated yourselves. I say well done to all of you. I certainly do not have an emotional understanding of what you went through to arrive at your present state of reality. Maybe I am bereft in this. Maybe I am incapable of understanding what mental machinations you lot had to go through to come to an understanding (however incomplete) of our natural and amazing world. I still say I applaud you all.

I feel immense sorrow for the religites who decide to write on these comment threads. They try so hard to explain the incomprehensible. They always come unstuck, because they never make the transition to evidenced reality. Their blinkered eyes only see unrealism. It is an untenable position and the words used by them to bolster their 'reality' are merely words.

My advice is to forget them. I know you cannot do this:-). You hope to try to deliver some normal scientific sense. It falls on deaf ears. My best to you, but you are crying in the wind. Dear Goldy, I think you are wonderful, but you will never get through. Steve99, you too. Billy, you have helped me to try to understand the religious mind-set. I am grateful to you for this . Ah, I don't know that I can accommodate it!! And the rest of you, I am sorry that I do not name you all. You understand what I am saying and how much I value you. The religious argument is going nowhere.

I like what your comments teach me, I like the links you supply; I have learnt and will continue to learn from you. My joy!! Your satisfaction!! Mutual growth. I love it.

'But do not dull thy palm with entertainment of each new hatched, unfledged comrade.' It's debilitating. And, ultimately unsatisfying. As we have seen:-).

My love to you all – I can't express my delight at what I have learnt (and will continue to learn) from all of you.
V- big smile

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

Comment #72386 by Veronique on September 21, 2007 at 12:17 am

I refuse point blank to reply to revcort and I beseech him not to reply to me.

First of all, they are being disobedient to the very words of Christ, who told us to go and make disciples of all nations - Revcort

This is the shit that frightens me, coupled together with the literal Muslims' exact counterpart. These two religions are hell-bent on religious wars – ah, Downunder, if this is why you are wrestling with religion then I couldn't agree more. It is a disaster zone. And these fruit loops are going to involve the rest of us in their zany, zealous and utterly stupid campaign to bring the world to its comparative knees. And they have the capacity for making WMDs. My intense anger at this arrogant, 'we know best because Jesus/Mohammed told us to proselytise/convert the world to the word of [insert whatever egomaniacal deity here] god' is unbounded.

And then we have the Zionists who demand an ancient privilege because they believe the OT. FFS, what is going on? They all seem deliberately bent of self-immolation and indiscriminate murder in their strategies to get to their imaginary place(s) and screw this tiny little planet's capacity to cope with their and our bulging populations.

Shit, am I pissed off! Yes, I am. Why can't they see that all their piddling religions emanated in a small area of the planet's liveable surface thousands of years ago. None of the middle easterners had any bloody clue that other members of homo sapiens had traversed the planet and settled in other areas and developed myriads of other religious bullshit. But no, each one of these three Abrahamic religions thinks it has the answer to life, the universe and everything. What incredible arrogance!! In the 21st century – what amazing blinkerdom (blinkocracy?). Some of them are certifiably insane!! My great aunt saw Jesus at the end of her bed – anyone want to call that rational? I thought she was a visual schizophrenic. Humph!! She also thought that Jesus talked to her – she was an auditory schizophrenic as well. She was certifiably insane. I have her 'mad' letters to my father imploring him to 'accept' Jesus as his saviour. God bless his little heart, he refused point blank to allow any of his children to be so indoctrinated in either religion or politics until an age when we were able to ask questions of our own volition. Great Dad!! One of the few.

I am not going to swear. I am going to have a drink. I am going to calm down. I am not going to be abusive. I will settle:-).

I can't believe that the rest of you think you are going to make any difference by arguing with religites on these comment threads. I take my hat off to you for trying. I can't do it. I have yet to see anything that looks remotely like reason and educative capacity in any of these religites.

I do understand that by arguing with these people, you are honing your skills at religious debate. Good luck. These people are unable to reason (although they think they do) past their religious filters that distort and misrepresent any methodology that conflicts with their illogically, unscientifically and ungrounded but heavily inculcated belief systems. RD has refused to 'debate' them. Totally understandable. I listened again and acutely to Alistair McGrath. He is utterly unable to look at any argument outside his filter of belief. Neither is any religite who comes onto these comment threads. And here, we have another one, who starts off trying to sound reasonable (and engaging you) but ultimately sliding into the bizarre conception of his religious beliefs. No reason. No capacity to understand reason or evidence.

Deep breath, breathe again. You guys teach me so much, I am very pleased that this site operates. All the religites who visit this site are interested in one thing only. Proselytising. They think it is their 'god-given duty', they are witnessing for their god(s). And their raison d'etre is to convert us all. That is their god-given reason for living. It frightens me. It's based on fear of retribution if they don't succeed, fear that they aren't convincing enough to sway unbelievers into their atrium, ultimately fear of their god's displeasure because they haven't been efficacious enough.

On the other side, they can feel justified in the 'trying' to convert us. They will still get 'lollies from god' for trying. They are in a no-lose situation as far as they are concerned. "Well we tried, God, but they wouldn't listen. Mea culpa – flagellate, flagellate. But I tried God, I really did. Please don't punish me.'

I know we are flawed. But this flawed? No, I can't comprehend this. It is beyond my understanding.

Aaaarrrggghhh.
V

322. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #71988 by Veronique on September 20, 2007 at 4:43 am

Thanks Leonni for your comment that directed me to these audios:-). I missed them in March!

Great fun and great boringness. Nothing in this argument has really changed. Thank whatever that I am not depressed. Life just goes on. I was surprised by the applauding for the creationist side. Maybe everyone was just being polite and clapping everyone indiscriminately. Very British and possibly very 1986.

Not so now. I understand why evolutionary biologists like RD no longer debate the creationists. There is no point. They have no real idea about the scientific method without pathetically passing the uncertainty of science through their certainty principle that is usually called rose coloured glasses and an ultimately uncritical belief in their holy book/bible.

I liked RD's reiterated comment that Darwin's theory is big enough to encompass our understanding of the universe and the slow, gradual change through Darwin's theory of natural selection that underlies his theory of evolution. I loved that he said literal belief in the bible was actually adopting a small theory that couldn't address the bigger questions of the universe. I can't understand why modern people can't see that religious dogma holds at its centre a geocentric view of the universe and, in particular, a middle-eastern geography that takes no account of the rest of the planet. All it does is describe a fantastical and spurious 'history' of a tiny bit of a tiny planet in an enormously large universe. It is mind-bogglingly crazy to believe in something so ridiculously parochial as any of the Abrahamic religions as anything other than man made as comfort and control.

Arthur Wilde was the most incredibly confused speaker for the motion. Left, right, left, right. 50/50 – how could he get it all so wrong? Pompous ass!! Theodore Wilson was appalling. I loathed his table thumping and screeching. You know, the more I shout the more I have credibility. Very embarrassing for any debater to behave in that manner!

Maynard-Smith was just wonderful. His reference to the prediction ability of science was gorgeous. His exposition on the grubbiness of creationism was terrific. He was quite right. Creationists search through scientific literature to find the 'ah has' with which to beat science over the head. They never accept that science can point the way to a comprehensive theory.

Thanks again, it's good to go back to some of these articles.

Cheers
V

323. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71924 by Veronique on September 20, 2007 at 12:23 am

You know BAEOZ what concerns me is that these people have a media voice. In the scheme of things, it appears that there are more of them than there are the likes of us.

We seem to have a few public voices and, of course, we have some very good big guns at the moment, but not nearly as many journos and columnists as the other crowd. And your average Joe Blow reads papers but not necessarily books.

I wish I knew how to write and worked as a columnist for a paper. I guess we all wish that at the moment. It would help.

My religi-board quote was partially wiped off again on the weekend. Quite innocuous, I thought. It was a quote from RD on EOR:

Science frees us from superstition and dogma and enables us to base our knowledge on evidence

Now, I ask you, what's wrong with that? knowledge with evidence was wiped off.

Ah well, we have to keep on trying. Write more letters, post more comments to the papers. I keep trying to formulate plans. I think the critical thinking and analysis one will come off with the local high school sometime next year. I want it run under the auspices of the Neighbourhood Centre with off-campus accreditation.

Wish me luck. Have a drink:-)
V

324. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #71908 by Veronique on September 19, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Gee I hope this court action has legs.

A couple of days ago I posted a Tomdispatch link to an interview with James Carrol in which he commented on the evangelical infiltration in the Pentagon.

I also hope it's the first case of many. One can be swept under the carpet. Hundreds can't.

It really is turning into a tussle about the Constitution. I pity poor America. I wouldn't want to live there. Not now.

Here's hoping
V

325. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71684 by Veronique on September 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Thank you Downunder for your reply.

I have sent you a private message that you will find in the forum section on this site. If you haven't already done so, click on button that alerts you to the receipt of a private message by email. You will find it in your profile.

Cheers
V

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

Comment #71415 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 6:06 pm

224. Comment #71403 by NormanDoering

Thank you for the link. A thoroughly enjoyable read:-). I may well revisit your blog and meander through it. I know you've linked it before, I had never visited.

Cheers
V

327. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71411 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 5:48 pm

2367. Comment #71383 by PaulEmecz

I am sorry. I had no intention of appearing patronising. Exasperated yes. And what I was reminding you of are things we all have to be reminded of at times.

I think the claim that morality come from society is far more worthy of the title "waffty wankering".

Waffty wankering referred to the interminable, long and repetitive thousands of posts that you, the Wee Flea, Dianelos and others of xtian persuasions make on these threads. It was not specific to the dozens of posts you have made about morality. Please don't take my words out of context.

I paint a bleak picture indeed. It appears to me that we learn very little about ourselves and our behaviour despite our increasing knowledge. It is most certainly not heartless. It was a very heartfelt question to which I haven't the answer.

Please don't cherry pick my words and attach them to some meaning of yours that was never intended by me.

We seem to have substituted important principles for pragmatism, and no longer seem to value every life.

I would guess that as our global population increases exponentially, we will all end up being more pragmatic; we will have no choice. And I seriously doubt that throughout our history we have ever valued every life. That is just palpable nonsense as any history text shows.

We are a very punitive species and the more complicated our societies become, the more we institute punitive measures. It is not going to get much better. It's become a juggernaut.

As for the rest, as Lauregon says, it your problem not mine. If you have concerns about your country and where it is heading, get out there and do something about it, not waste time here.

And that is I am going to say about this matter.

PS. I am not being patronising, I am not cross, I am not depressed and I am not stupid.
V

328. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71378 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 3:30 pm

OMG - 16 million of them. 40,000 churches. The bloody Westboro Baptist Church. Cheating their way into Iraq. A crusade, for christ's sake.

I am horrified by this. I think it must be an old video. The Shrub looks younger. I didn't know about this.

I don't know what to say, my heart is pounding.
I have to watch the vid again.

Talk later
V

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

Comment #71364 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 2:34 pm

168. Comment #71197 by Quetzalcoatl

Oh Quetz, you have made my day. I am laughing like a hyena:-).

This is the weirdest thread, but at least the Rev has a sense of humour unlike most of the others.

Have fun, you guys. I'll just keep reading and laughing:-).

Cheers
V

330. The Bili Apes Are in Trouble!

Comment #71354 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 2:08 pm

4. Comment #71241 by Dr Benway

I am led to understand that a lot of ivory is sold via e-bay. There has been a call to boycott e-bay until it removes all sellers of ivory from its web site. I can't see that working.

Gee this stuff gives me the shits! I am not anti-human either, well sometimes I am. Our thoughtless behaviour in the governance of this planet stirs me up like everyone else has said.

I don't know Doc. While ever our appetites remain insatiable, while ever our governments remain attached to a model of economic rationalism and follow the 4% annual growth regime, we just won't make it. And all the chimpanzees will go the way of the dodo. All over the planet there are reducing islands of geographic habitat as we eat our future (as Flannery puts it).

I listened to an interview on Saturday that was part of Science Week here in Oz. Jeremy Leggett of Solar Century said that by 2012, plus or minus a couple of years, we will be looking at a temperature rise of possibly 2º and we probably won't stay under the target of 450 ppm tropospheric CO2. We are at about 377 ppm now. And we still mine and burn coal and uranium. Unbelievable. Methane packs approximately 22 times more punch than CO2 and the ice caps and tundra are melting. And my son's wife has just had a little boy. sigh

I can't help feeling that whatever we do, it's like shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. I don't really believe that the politicians will do anything that remotely addresses the reduction of environmental stressors. At the APEC meeting in Sydney, our PM Howard boasted about the 21 member countries agreeing on 'aspirational goals' to reduce greenhouse gases. Whoopee do. Another talk-fest where these countries do marketing and trade deals to improve their bottom line. And, still no one will talk about global population control.

Oh dear
V

331. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71208 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 3:31 am

2360. Comment #71192 by Philip1978

Thank you. I know that I am right to call Dianelos and Paul to account. Their waffty wankering is pure bullshit. It's a way of trying to divert reasonable discourse into dogmatic idealism.

I, for one, won't wear it.

This tedious bullshit is not what I want to talk about. God rot them.
V

332. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71171 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 1:33 am

Dearest Paul,

Why can't you accept that you make your moral choices based on what you just know to be advantageous to you and everyone else with whom you interact? Why does there have to be a 'being' that dictates to you what is right and what is wrong? You must realise somewhere within you that you make your own moral choices on acceptable behaviour.

You flog this poor old horse to death. Dear man, you know, maybe in an inchoate way, what is right and what is wrong. Please stop trying to box it into an external belief structure. You really do know. You live your life on that premise. Nothing to do with a god. You know!

You don't have to intellectualise this to the 'nth' degree. Life is not that hard; well maybe and maybe sometimes. But not within your living standards in 2007 in Britain? Yes? That's where you live, I think.

It has always seemed to me that a philosopher class (and I am assuming that these conversations actually are a modern day variation on the conversations that consumed ancient philosophers in both Greece and Rome, but not quite as encompassing) needs a slave class (actually so in ancient times), translated into modern day terminology as those who take away the rubbish/garbage that you generate, manage the STPs (Sewage Treatment Plants) when you push the toilet button, generate food production for your consumption (harsh and grinding work with little remuneration, especially now in a climatically changing world; been there, done that), build dams and the reticulating infrastructure that provides you with clean, uncontaminated water when you turn on a tap to wash your son or have a drink of water that will not infest you with nasty organisms.

I know you are 35, so is BAEOZ, so are many on this site whose ages I don't know. Get a grip on the physical reality in which you actually live your life. The thousands of busy little beavers who make your life tenable in Britain and sequester you and your family from poverty, disease and pestilential death need to be lauded. Without public health, you could possibly, even probably, be fucked. Without the taxes I hope you pay you wouldn't have the roads on which you are able to drive. You wouldn't have access to the courts that will hear your case (flawed on 'common' justice as it may be) against someone who is attempting to defraud you etc.

Get your priorities in order. Live your life and if you have to worship something, worship the science that has delivered, to you and yours, longevity without disease and untimely death. What a remarkable achievement our clear thinkers and basic, ordinary science professionals have given to us. Unfortunately the down side of this is that our global population is growing exponentially, attacked on both sides by decreased infant mortality and increased longevity.

Understand that maybe 5,000 or even 2,000 years ago you would never have reached 35 years of age. Your Jesus is reportedly supposed to have died when he was 33 – but that was murder. Average age 30+. You would probably have been dead. It's a great way to look at your longevity. Africa is still in the 30+ timeframe. You are privileged and you should be cognisant of that. Calm down. Live and enjoy.

Love
V

333. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71158 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 11:58 pm

Hi Philip

You won your challenge!! I love this site. Thank you for your birthday wishes - I was extremely circumspect given my advancing age:-). Well, sort of!

It's good to be back
Cheers
V

334. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71154 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 11:32 pm

13. Comment #71151 by Russell Blackford

I know this, but didn't realise until I traversed the continent in 1969. I could never understand cracker night in NSW being in May.

To me it was always a celebration of Guy Fawkes' day. What was the NSW May celebration about? Do you recall?

Of course, it's all gone now. Pyrotechnicians need licences to operate and there has to be an exclusion zone so that no-one gets hurt.

My memories, however, are full of screaming, laughter and warmth (from the bonfire). We used to lock the dogs and cats inside the house so they wouldn't be frightened by the noise etc. But kids lost an eye or were burnt by the phosphorus.

And that didn't need banning legislation, just some smarts by parents. As we know (now), parents are just stupid and have to be legislated against because they allow their children to be damaged.

Sorry, that's the bitch in me:-)
V

335. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71148 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 11:10 pm

7. Comment #71144 by BAEOZ

What happened between 35 and 64? I thought everyone knew that Guy Fawkes and his team nearly succeeded in blowing up the British Houses of Parliament on November 5th. We have celebrated with fireworks every since. Well, until the powers that be banned fireworks. When I was a kid, we used to build fires in the vacant lot and hang up an effigy of Guy Fawkes and let off penny bangers, catherine wheels and rockets. There were a number of accidents to both people and dogs and it was eventually outlawed. Nothing ever replaced it.

As an act of reverence of this event and because my surname is Guy, I have elected to travel on this auspicious day!

Happy birthday to you, mate. I hope you had as pleasant and boozy afternoon as did I last Sunday.

Cheers
V

336. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71145 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Hey everyone, this is a good post APEC Chaser run down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3zKuLgH_l8&NR=1

Enjoy!!
V

337. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71142 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 10:44 pm

4. Comment #71138 by BAEOZ

At the moment, I am in heaven and laughing my guts out sweetheart. I must be very bent:-) I get so much delight out of things like this. I have just added a youtube link to my post so others can watch The Chaser, if they haven't already.

Shit, we are an irreverent lot down here, aren't we? Thank fuck for that. We would never have survived the Henri's of the world otherwise:-).

And I am now officially 64, so I demand respect from all and sundry! If you don't laugh uproariously at least once a day, I'll send in the tickling police:-)

How are you going BAEOZ - did you get my PM? I may be in Melbourne on Guy Fawkes Day on my way to Perth.

Cheers
V

338. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71136 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Yummy, yummy:-)

I thought it was the Onion to begin with. I love it. Pete Stark started this; I hope it snowballs. #2 is up and running with a delicious law suit.

Please Josh, post everything that happens with this one. It will be so much fun, hahaha.

It's going to be fun if and when our Aussie police try to prosecute The Chaser for getting through their locked-down Sydney for the APEC conference. Apparently The Chaser goes to a hearing on October 4th.

I hope you all saw that. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) let The Chaser's dodgy motorcade through all the checkpoints to about 10 metres of where Bush was staying. The Chaser wore 'Insecurity' badges, their motorcade flew Canadian flags. Nothing gelled with the AFP. Absolutely hilarious. Erm, very embarrassing for our top brass:-). Noses severely out of joint. We loved it.

Here's a youtube link - you'll find quite a lot uploaded to youtube about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo2aUUFGDIg&mode=related&search=

This conference was the one where Bush thanked our PM Howard for inviting him to the OPEC conference and expressed gratitude that Howard had kept the soldiers from Austria in Iraq. I think the whole of Australia cracked up. Didn't do Howard much good either.

I just adore shit like this. It takes the mickey out of everything and provides so much light relief.

Again, yummy
V

339. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71081 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Yorker

OT - well, not really. I don't know how to condense a link into a couple of pertinent words so this is a long link.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174837/tomdispatch_interview_james_carroll_american_fundamentalisms

I hope it works. I guess we all should read this interview with James Carroll. And just so you know, I am also with you Yorker.

In case you don't come back to this thread (like I wasn't going to:-)), I'll email you as well.

Cheers
V

340. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71054 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 5:24 pm

2349. Comment #71049 by Lauregon

Shit Lauregon. I knew what you were saying and I just went my merry old way. Sorry.

I guess though, if I had been included in the survey, I would have indicated that I wouldn't interpret head-tilting as a sign of an honest person. How bloody fascinating that Romney is a head-tilter as well! I am an Aussie and haven't seen him except on that crazy program where all the candidates were asked to respond to the 'power of prayer' question from the gallery.

Again, sorry. This has turned into a very funny little side-line hasn't it? Hahaha. Maybe we should give it away:-).

On the other hand…. How anecdotally interesting:-).
V

341. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71031 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 3:10 pm

2342. Comment #70889 by Lauregon

Interesting study. I must say that the two young men to whom I referred were not especially trustworthy. At least, not so far as our Taxation Office would be concerned.

The reason I was talking to them was with regard to their business practices that were less than honest. Neither of them was what I would consider trustworthy. Their self-interest was exemplary:-). They hid cash money and actively chose to not declare quite a lot of their business income. Their commitment to the society that provided the infrastructure paid for by the taxes collected by the ATO was less than exemplary.

My two young men had decided consciously that they would not consider the broad result of their actions. Instead their regard for their own gain took precedence. I know that I may get slammed here and I understand that a lot of people think that cheating on Tax Agencies is fair game. It can be justified with all manner of mental gymnastics.

I dealt with a lot of people in my working life as a public business manager. I am aware of every means to legitimately minimise one's taxation obligations. These obligations are imposed by both state and federal legislation. Tax avoidance is another thing altogether.

The head tilting was apparent when I tried to explain the possible legal consequences of these young men's actions. So, I don't take all that much cognisance of the study you mention Lauregon. Maybe Oxytocin will weigh in here. He may know of the study and/or others.

As a consequence of my dealings with people, I have developed a wariness of head tilting. I know, I know, that's subjective and anecdotal. However, that's how we tend to live our lives.

Having said that, I have come to see McGrath as a genuine, if confused and probably fearful Xtian, well able to indulge in mental gymnastics.

Corylus thank you for that link to Jonathan Bennett's essay. I join with newatheist in urging Paul to read it.

Cheers (and it is indeed a beautiful morning)
V

342. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71012 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 1:16 pm

2223. Comment #69315 by Downunder

Here we go mate.
I don't know that I can enlighten you; I wouldn't presume that far. There's an old saying that goes something like 'Life is what happens to you while you are making plans (on how to live your life).' I apologise right now for what is going to be a very long comment. Most of you won't bother reading this because it will go on forever:-) and is probably trite in the extreme.

Other posters have responded to your comment Downunder and I realise you have moved on. Here's my reply – sorry, I have been away, so I am just responding to your post now. Please forgive me if I reiterate points that have already been made in one form or another.

Of course one's life can end at any time. So can any animal's life. Carelessness, predation, disease and plain old age are common reasons. Please don't add murder of any sort to the list. I murder ants by my carelessness when I walk, flies and mosquitoes because I don't want them in my living space (spiders and snakes, I don't mind). I could add other things but it's probably unnecessary for this discussion. The State can murder (or otherwise incarcerate) me for my crimes against legislated societal standards.

we all have our lives. The problem is what to do with it.

I must say, at the outset, that I am a naturally ebullient person; serious, with a sense of the ridiculous; optimistic, with a small dose of pessimism that never lasts long. So, I have never encountered a problem with what to do with my life. I have had a somewhat chequered career; I have done lots of things in my 64 years, most of which have engaged me for differing periods of time, all of which have produced feelings of satisfaction. I have no problem changing direction, being attracted to different pursuits, thoroughly enjoying those pursuits then moving on to something else. I am rarely bored and take great delight in the challenges that move across my path. I embrace learning, even when it tests my mental capacity. I am a fortunate woman indeed. I would not have it any other way. I do not waste my time on intangibles and rhetorical or philosophical questionings except as a form of entertainment. I have to live my life to the extent to which I am able. That precludes my stroking my beard and cogitating on the ineffable. That requires some wine and a sense of humour:-).

Right, now that's out of the way. Next.

I have said before that the 'how' of things interests me. I gave up the 'whys' years ago, probably about the same time as Goldy did, ie. well before 40 years of age. I am no philosopher; I leave that to Russell Blackford and he does well, thank you very much:-).

Nature just is. It's neither 'beautiful nor cruel'. Those are human constructs and expressed in our languages. Rudyard Kipling was an exponent of this type of beautiful, but silly sentimentalism. As was Wordsworth, Tennyson and a myriad of others. John Donne made gorgeous poetry and I treasure him. I just don't adopt it as my worldview. Shakespeare can bring me to tears (and often does), but I understand that he was writing for the Tudors' financial blandishments. One must be pragmatic after all:-). Do I blame him? Not at all. He was still able to imbue his writings with some of the best understandings of ordinary human emotions that still bring us all undone. And we treasure him for his insights into the human condition. Well, I think he's terrific anyway:-). I don't think I am an orphan.

earthquakes, floods, droughts, diseases

These things are part and parcel of being alive on a planet that is, for the most part, relatively stable. But there is always movement on the horizon. I tend to like James Lovelock's description of our planet; he calls it Gaia – unfortunately a somewhat loaded word with connotations that he takes great pains to dispel when describing his use of the word to describe this pale blue dot.

Feelings – they are different. I have to shut my eyes when a cheetah, lioness, tigress or crocodile pulls down a baby gazelle, or other prey (read food). Yet I am addicted to animal videos and television series of animal behaviours. All these animals share our living space. We all grew up together. I reiterate that we are not that special. We still behave as our adrenal glands dictate; as do other species. Our airs and graces tend more to diminish than elevate us.

I burst into uncontrollable tears when I see Zimbabwean babies crying as they starve to death. I remember, the first release of pictures taken of Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen 20 years after WWII when the film came out of government archives.*

Edit – I have just read your post 2314 where you say you lived through that war. You are older than I and have seen and experienced things I didn't know about until much later. I shouldn't think that anyone would disagree that our human wars are devastating and we would all be thankful to see a halt to them. However wars and fighting make up vastly more of our human history than the small periods of peace. I am not being precious here, just stating the historically observable.

*All those emaciated bodies of babies, children and adults pouring down the open chutes into mass graves. I couldn't sleep for days after seeing those films posted (in black and white) on the television screen. I was 22 years old and utterly unaware of the reality of the slaughter that had occurred. I cried and cried – I had an 18 month-old son who held onto my skirts as the films rolled relentlessly on and my tears dropped. I had to try to hold my emotional self together for fear of frightening my little boy who had no idea what was happening. All he could feel was that I wasn't the mummy he had been playing with 5 minutes earlier. I remember that time like yesterday. Of course my reactions affected him, deeply, inchoately. That is part of his life. He would no more remember it than I would remember something that occurred in my life at 18 months of age. Some memory remains, however inaccessible it may be. And it colours our subsequent emotional reactions to events that we witness, even though we cannot pinpoint why our reactions are so. We understand so little about ourselves.

Why are humans so hell-bent on fighting?

As with all vertebrates and especially mammals, we share a brain that contains the brainstem and the Limbic system that includes the amygdala and the hippocampus. We also have a cerebellum. They are postulated in all vertebrates. They are certainly discernible in human development; in foetuses and foetal growth and then in adult brain dissection. Most of their functions relate to autonomic reactions. Just as well. We couldn't live without them. We are merely another species on this tiny place. I don't give humans pride of place except insofar as humans are the most pestilential and also the most extraordinary animals this poor planet has ever housed. I am not a believer in us as the 'highest form' of species that has evolved on this lovely planet. I look around me and think? (feel?) that the sooner we reach our midnight and expire, the better off this place will be. All earthly life-spans are insignificant in the totality of the universe. Why should it be any other way? Human hubris abounds, I know. It is a nonsense.

The neo-cortex is the new growth in mammalian brains and exploded into view with homo sapiens and, to a lesser extent, with our immediate cousins. (Someone can take me to task with this simplistic exposition). It will do for the nonce.

All animals are 'hell-bent on fighting'. Resources are scarce and getting scarcer; dominance and survival is the name of the game. Shit, even the bacteria fight for supremacy! The viruses mutate to gain an extra edge! It's not unusual at all. It appears in every form of life on this planet. The 'weeds' fight for ground to smother their adversaries. Plants develop toxins or thorns or traps to deter predators. It's a battle for survival. I am sorry for the 'warlike' words – I am using language after all. Humans developed language and these words are part of the lexicon. They are 'fighting' words. And we made them up:-).

It's all very well to have language and posit questions like the ones you pose (you are not really asking naively; that I do understand). But I do think you are crying in the wind. This is life. It is a struggle. That's what makes it interesting. That's what gives it value.

Throughout our human history (in the words of Marcus Brigstocke), it has been fight, smash, kill, destroy, maim, disenfranchise. There have been small hiatuses in this, at least, 10,000 year scenario and I know we are trying to become 'civilised' in the 21st Century. It appears to be small cheese really. Civilisation is a very thin veneer, easily abandoned in the face of real or imagined threat. It is basically business as usual (with a few more environmentally deadly weapons than we used to have. Spears, swords, guns, gatling-guns and multiple shot weapons have faded into history with the proliferation of nuclear weapons). Good grief!!! You ask 'why'. Start looking at what we are, have done and will keep doing for most of our history. It's internecine warfare and it hasn't really stopped. We are an appalling species, given our intelligence, notwithstanding our capacity for self-reflection and our ability to learn about and manipulate our environment. I worry about the value of scientific endeavour when so much of what is learnt is either ignored by governments or subverted to improper use by the generals.

It's of little point to postulate the ineffable whys. It's coffee table talk, the questioning by those who actually have a coffee table. We have a looooong way to go. At this point and probably for several thousands of years, we will be battling our adrenal glands. We appear to be only partly rational. Maybe we will grow into our frontal lobes. Who knows if we will survive that long? We are evolving, as we do and that IS life. I agree that we have to continue trying to discover why we behave as we do. But will our increased knowledge temper our behaviour? I don't know.

In the meantime, all you can do is live by your own precepts. Don't expect others to live by your precepts. It just doesn't happen. It's a big world out there on this small planet:-).

How do YOU answer those questions for the younger generation?
Please do enlighten me.

I thought that in order to address this question, I would ask an intelligent 19 year-old who is an acquaintance of mine. Now, I must admit, I haven't taken a survey of more than one:-) so her comments are anecdotal. That's the qualification. However, here are her answers to your queries – in her words, not monitored by me, OK? Her name is Kobi, she's a white Australian. Here's her typed response:

'Hi everyone. Firstly, I'd like to say that I understand this question was directed at V, but she thinks that my input in this is important in answering the questions at hand, and perhaps bringing a new perspective to the discussion.

Secondly, I want you all to know that whilst I may be a little more mature and grounded than a lot of people my age, I in no way consider myself to be an intelligent person, or someone who even has opinions worth posting on a board such as this. You all seem to be very well read and opinionated, and I'm sure you can all back up every argument you've ever made. I'm not here to antagonise, I'm here to add my opinion to the dung heap. Thus, my pointless ramble begins.

Downunder, from what I read of your post, you must be around 85, which means I have great respect for your opinions and life experiences. However, I don't understand exactly what your questions were? They seemed a little convoluted, if not entirely rhetorical. From what I can establish, you would like someone to sum up the meaning of life. Well, if you haven't figured that out yet, I'm pretty screwed. There's absolutely no way I can answer that. I'm a naïve young chickling and I'm the first to admit that I'm very uninformed about certain things.

The thing that worries me, is that a great deal of people spend a great deal of their time, sitting at their computers theorising the significance of life, when perhaps they should be out there living it??

I have had some very serious and "intellectual" conversations about religion, politics and the human psyche (which I find incredibly fascinating), and while these conversations can be rewarding and help me (as a young person) open my mind to other peoples opinions and theories, they are just that… conversations.

Since I'm young, perhaps the appeal of this for you is that you have become bored with a life you have already spent a long time living, so this is a way to keep your mind stimulated. If so, that's perfectly understandable. Personally, I enjoy reading (often fiction - which allows me to exist in another time or place). Playing with animals. Walking on the beach. Listening to music. Opening up to another human being for absolutely no reason other than that I want to share myself with them. Who's not to say that THOSE things are the reason we exist on this planet? All of us are chemical reactions within a mass of flesh and organs and other gooey stuff. We are all our own people, and life is what you want it be.

Humans make up the most incredible shit to comfort (or is that confuse?) themselves. I don't think believing in a greater power is a bad thing. The same way I don't think relying purely on science is disadvantageous. What I do believe is that it is YOUR belief, and you shouldn't feel the need to justify it to anyone else. By the same token, I don't think you should be trying to cram your beliefs down anyone else's throats.

While it is intellectually rewarding to sit around hypothesising about the significance or substance of the human condition, I find it a little self-indulgent. Everything in moderation, sure. But if Richard Dawkins wrote a book informing you all that the ultimate purpose of our hard earned living was to learn to accept yourself and the billions of DIFFERENT people around you, would you all PLEASE leave your computers and go spend time with your family and friends?

If you're uncomfortable with that, then consider another answer; 42.

There you go Downunder I didn't edit any of that. She's the next generation. Kudos to her. She will make it after we are dead. Sobering, ain't it. That's our Kobi.

Here's my last take (I have said that before!!:-)) on this thread:

Is there a purpose for our hard earned living; we die whether or not we have reached some stage of satisfaction.

To my mind, 'purpose' is what you make it. Be a biochemist, a public health epidemiologist, a giver of aid to African countries, an accountant, a pro bono lawyer, a teacher, a librarian, a philosopher, a volunteer for your preferred charity, etc. Whatever you achieve is measured by your own measure of achievement. And, of course, you die. And very few people, if any, will dance on your grave.

Let God be a "delusion" but undeniably the concept has been filling an obvious instinctive human need for 1000's of years.

So why have I never felt this 'obvious instinctive human need'? I am human; I have never felt a need for that stuff. Am I aberrant? How many thousands or millions of us are aberrant? It appears to me that I have no need of a supernatural being in my life. I live a life that is as full as any believer's life – I don't need a supernatural being to attempt to give me a moral viewpoint or a blueprint for living. I have no understanding of the hereafter touted by the followers of gods of all religions. I understand that I worked it out for myself with the help of my intimate community without any code delivered supernaturally by the old Moses. 40 years in the desert??? If a woman had led them out of Egypt they would have made it in 40 days (thanks G. Greer:-).). And I know there is no archaeological evidence for the exodus anyway. No bones, no swords, no idols, no footprints!!

I think it's all a lot of fun (I don't deny the concomitant tragedies either) and I treasure my time, this time, on the only planet I will ever know. I don't live my life by the 'whys', how can I, why should I, who gives a damn, and can I sleep tonight. It's bollocks. It's not that I don't cogitate and think of the 'big' questions. They may be answered one day, but not yet; not now. I just let the unanswerable whys slip by and concentrate on my three score years and ten. I may make it to 85, who knows – I don't, but I do have tomorrow and it is shaping up to be a beautiful day. And that's enough for (and from) me.

Cheers
V

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

Comment #70822 by Veronique on September 17, 2007 at 2:41 am

Stanford's trump card is his observation that "religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith." Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts."

This is the most salient point. Stanford says it all. Faith has nothing to do with evidential understanding nor does it have anything to do with observed facts (read scientific theories).

There is no way round this way of thinking. The Stanfords and others of this world are locked into a delusional belief structure that propounds their points of view that fly in the face of the science that we have come to understand in a fairly rational way of assessing our world, given the mysteries that perpetually elude us. Given that people have difficulty with rationality, I would like to post some points of view that resonate with me – I don't pretend to be fully rational all the time.

With regard to the biblical etchings of possibly real events, I would like to post Polonius' speech to his son Laertes when Laertes was on his way to France to garner support for the confusion that was Denmark at the time (as beautifully inscribed by Shakespeare):

The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,
And you are stayed for.
There, my blessings with thee!
And these few precepts in thy memory.
Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportioned act his tongue.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar,
The friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel,
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new hatched, unfledged comrade.
Beware of entrance to a quarrel, but, being in,
Bear't that th'opposed may be aware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice,
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgement.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not expressed in fancy, rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are most select and generous, chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: To thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Farewell; My blessing season this in thee!

Polonius was a very silly man and was killed under the arras but Shakespeare gave him a father's voice. You know, I have only a poor intellectual understanding of religion. That quote from Hamlet has been one of my guiding lights. So has Macbeth's speech when Seyton told him of Lady MacBeth's death.

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

There's Portia as well. How beautifully did Shakespeare draw his characters even under the aegis and money of Elizabeth 1st. These extraordinary speeches in Shakespeare's works (and there are many others) lift my heart to embellish all that is good and appalling as understood by us.

I love you all; I fear for us all. We are very flawed. My best to all of us:-).
V

344. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70793 by Veronique on September 16, 2007 at 11:29 pm

2327. Comment #70566 by Downunder

You have said that you write your comments in Word. Good. That stops the potential to lose long posts being typed straight into the comments box.

I have found that if I am logged in and then start writing in Word, by the time I get around to posting, I have either been logged out OR I am told that I am still logged in but I lose the post anyway. Something to do with time out.

Do you cut and paste your Word comment to the RD comment box? I think this may be the problem. Try to copy and paste instead. Then if you lose the comment in the comment box, you still have it in Word for re-copying. You will have to log in again but you have your original post. I have not lost a post forever since I started doing this.

Hope I am not telling you how to suck eggs:-)

Cheers
V

345. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70790 by Veronique on September 16, 2007 at 11:23 pm

It is way too late to go back to the original article but I have done anyway:-). At least EastCoastAtheist has posted a comment on the article:-).

I listened to the McGrath interview again, this time without interruptions. I think I may have changed my mind about him. I originally said that I didn't think he believed what he was saying to Dawkins. I was also put off by his facial expressions and the way he held his head to one side. Mea culpa. It got in the way of my listening to him properly the first time. I had a couple of clients (both young men) who used to look at me with their head on one side like McGrath does. I thought, at the time, that both these men were using what I would call a sidelong glance as though they were not sure that they understood what I was telling them.

McGrath is certainly no fool. Dawkins boxed him in and there was no way that McGrath could step outside his mind-set. It was really quite sad to see McGrath's inability to engage in a debate where his statements always started with:

'You bring up some interesting points. From a Christian point of view…' and then launched into his piece from exactly the same base of his belief and missing the important points that he credited to Dawkins. He appeared to me to be totally unable to listen to Dawkins except through his primary filter that Jesus is real, salvation is real and he came to understand his god via Jesus. It occurs to me that we are in a better position to attempt to understand the McGraths of the world than they are able to understand the atheist stance. Dawkins certainly understood what McGrath was saying but wanted to know why? And McGrath couldn't really answer him – except for the consolation bit. Even that McGrath attributed to 'the Christian point of view'. He kept distancing himself from his own arguments.

Someone somewhere on these threads has mentioned stepping into other people's shoes. It's very difficult to do because you can't get inside someone else's head and look out at the world through his eyes. Finally, this interview allowed me to get as close as I possibly can to McGrath's mind-set. He doesn't think he is close-minded at all. He thinks he's debating Dawkins on the equal playing field of reason. Extraordinary. However, McGrath actually enlightened me to the basic stance of xtianity. I begin to understand why they only hold the NT to be true and severely cherry-pick the OT. Untenable really, but they are very slippery. The need for supernatural consolation is indeed strong.

I had a read through RD's section on the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I am continually gob-smacked by the vitriol written by some xtians. The passion that is stirred up in them colours their writing ability, spelling and grammar. We think we can be rude and swear at people who troll here. I certainly have! We have nothing on these guys. You almost have to wipe the spittle off the screen! All their comments come down to wishing us in hell to fry and burn and scream in pain. This sort of hate for us is way beyond….? I can't even think of a word to use.

McGrath may be intellectually dishonest but he is not vitriolic. He is an academic theologian who has learned to articulate his position from any front. He just cannot get outside his paradigm. And he can't see what it is that he discloses to his listeners. I suppose, as a xtian, he HAS to witness for his god because god is checking up on him and will know if he slides. How awful. However I prefer him to the revolting posts that have arrived on RD's site from hateful, fearful and obdurate literal xtians.

Cheers
V

346. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70672 by Veronique on September 16, 2007 at 2:50 pm

11. Comment #70558 by doodinthemood

Just woken up. Wow, what a lot of heat!

My comment about elitism related to your use of 'simple' as a descriptive word. I took, what I thought was fairly mild, umbrage at the word. I certainly did not 'accuse' you of elitism. This is always the problem with language.

Ho hum.

56. Comment #70662 by sapient

Brian, you are doing well and I have always supported RRS from the first time I came across the "Challenge". You will never have an argument from me. And thank you for the emails you post out from time to time. Like Yorker, I had no idea that there were xtians posting as atheists. Stay sharp:-). Could an Australian site be set up as Tim suggested? Would it be worth it?

Now, I am not going to involve myself any further in commenting on this thread.
V

347. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70553 by Veronique on September 16, 2007 at 3:03 am

7. Comment #70546 by doodinthemood

Please don't be elitist about this. It's unnecessary and divisive. People of all sorts are able to understand the silliness of religiosity. RRS caters for a group of people who have no other voice. Good on them!! They have my support, even if they are outside my cultural norms.

I don't care for intellectual division on this front. Remember Everyman. It's important.

Cheers
V

348. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70544 by Veronique on September 16, 2007 at 1:40 am

4. Comment #70537 by Tim Marsh

Tim, see if you can start an Australian 'chapter' of the RRS or something like that. I reckon it would go down fairly well in Oz.

I am too old to really appreciate this kind of in-your-face stuff and its humour, but I did donate $A500 to their beginnings because I think they are another arm to the Medusa that is being spawned (lousy sentence I know).

I am a little pissed - I have just come home from a boozy birthday afternoon:-)

Try it on, it's not a silly idea.
V

349. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70372 by Veronique on September 15, 2007 at 6:05 am

Downunder

I haven't forgotten your question at comment 2223. I won't be able to post an answer for a couple of days because I want to co-opt a young person to address your points. She isn't available yet. The rest of my answer to you is written and waiting for her input.

Just thought I'd let you know that I hadn't shirked:-)
V

350. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69893 by Veronique on September 13, 2007 at 5:07 am

Hi you guys. Just back from a 3 day trip to Sydney. A cursory checking in on this site.

The Flea has sucked you in again. Are you all masochists or do you all just like a good stoush:-) Hahaha.

Go for it
V - talk later