301. Fleabytes

Comment #139802 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 2:11 pm

I realised that there was not much point, as I had already posted on another thread where it was the main topic, and where people had shown interest, so would have been looking out for it. If it was of interest, people could say on other threads.

Well, it's of interest to me, but I hadn't found my way to that other thread - it's impossible to keep up with all the threads on this site. So I still think it's worth posting it here too. Just my twopennyworth.

302. Fleabytes

Comment #139796 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Steve Z, did you delete your post with the link to your blog review of Vox Day's book? It seemed to vanish whilst I was away reading the review.

I thought it was very good. It's an entirely good thing that these books are tackled and challenged, and shown for what they are. For goodness' sake, don't feel awkward about posting it on this thread - I can't think of anywhere more appropriate for it to go. It's another fleabyte, after all.

There was just one point in your review that I think I disagree with slightly:

Dawkins does not say that raising children in a religion is abuse. He says that labelling children as being of a religion before they are of an age to make that choice themselves is abuse, as it leads to problems such as segregation and stereotyping

You're absolutely right that Dawkins' argument on religion and child abuse has been grossly distorted, but I think his objection goes beyond just the segregation and stereotyping that can occur when children are labelled with the religion of their parents: I understood him to have been arguing that it is an abuse of their right to decide for themselves at an appropriate age; that it is something that is deliberately imposed on them by zealous parents who are unwilling to run the risk of letting them reach their own conclusions on the matter. So I think the accusation is a little stronger than you have expressed it here.

That's a minor quibble, though. I've already gleaned enough from this first instalment to be glad that this wasn't one of the four books I took on. Not that reading any of these four was exactly enjoyable, you understand, but Vox Day sounds even more infuriating.

Looking forward to reading the next bits!

EDIT: For anyone else who'd like to read Steve's review, it's here: http://zarbi.livejournal.com/110267.html

303. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139699 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm

the Archbishops of Canterbury and York both agreed not to oppose the abolition, although both questioned its timing.

Well, you can understand their concerns. "Now" is always going to be such a bad time for any reining in of Christian privilege ...

304. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139696 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Prominent Christian activist Baroness O'Cathain launched a blistering attack on the amendment, with particular fury aimed at Evan Harris. Lady O'Cathain maintained that abolition of blasphemy would unleash a torrent of abuse towards Christians.

I think the Baroness has perhaps misunderstood whom the blasphemy law was intended to protect from abuse!

305. Fleabytes

Comment #139690 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 11:59 am

I keep telling the world about the malevolent Heterosexual Dextral Tyranny that's trying to oppress me wherever I go by putting the forks on the wrong side of the table and faiing to provide me with appropriate scissors for my chiral needs.

Oh, Cartomancer, you poor thing. Gay and left-handed! God certainly had it in for you, didn't he?! ;-)

306. Fleabytes

Comment #139686 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 11:54 am

Geoff: I'm not sure I can think of a word that would meet with general approval - Acceptance? Inclusion? dunno if those are any better.

Not sure that "acceptance" is really much better than "tolerance". Maybe "indifference" is inching closer to the desired attitude? Or "neutrality"?

307. Fleabytes

Comment #139679 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 11:42 am

Kaiserkriss: Without wanting to open another can of worms, I do see your point, however instead of having the word "homosexuals" in al's post, would you feel the same if the word "atheists", or "religions" would have been used, obviously in an appropriate context?

Ouch! I think you've just given me a better insight into Steve's response to this issue. I would be LIVID to hear that someone was "tolerating" my atheism!!!!

308. Fleabytes

Comment #139671 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 11:37 am

Steve Z: Decades ago, many seemed to think that tolerance of homosexuality was a good thing. I disagree. I am not someone to be tolerated like some kind of naughty child. I want to be a full and respected member of society, not someone who is included on sufferance.

I think that's a perfectly fair stance to take, Steve! I just wonder what verb you would suggest in place of "tolerate" though, in the context that Al-Rawandi used it above.

It seems to me that the ideal would be that society had reached the point where homosexuality simply wasn't an issue and where any discussion of attitudes towards it would therefore be as anachronistic as a discussion on attitudes to left-handedness.

In the meantime, though, it seems to me that almost any word we can think of is fraught with equally unwanted overtones.

We could go the other way and speak of "celebration of homosexuals in advanced societies" but this seems inappropriate to me too. Why celebrate homosexuality? Or heterosexuality, come to that? It seems as inappropriate to me as saying that you're "proud" to be British. I've never understood what grounds there are for pride in something over which you've had no control whatsoever; and I'd have the same objection to "celebrating" something that just is.

In the specific example above, we could perhaps evade the issue by saying "Thus homosexuality is less of an issue in advanced societies" - but I still think it would be useful to have an appropriate term for use in other contexts. Can anyone suggest one?

309. Fleabytes

Comment #139619 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 8:18 am

Steve Zara: There are some distinctly unpleasant forms of "comfort" provided by religion.

Yes, indeed. As you'd expect, really. Biblical morality is founded on the mores and attitudes of the Bronze and Iron Ages. 21st century morality is considerably more compassionate, tolerant and knowledgeable, and is therefore uncomfortable and even downright unacceptable to those who don't have the capacity for tolerance and compassion that most educated people now share. To such people biblical pronouncements are, er, a godsend.

310. Fleabytes

Comment #139609 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 7:54 am

ScottishGeologist: Thanks for that post, SG. How could I have forgotten the word "depravity"? ! Such a hate-filled word, so redolent of disgust and distaste and fear. It is so very hard to reconcile this word with the claim that their faith fills them with love and compassion for their fellow human beings, isn't it?
Thanks for the link to the Finlay Macleod article too. This bit struck me particularly:

The evangelical belief-system that arrived in the early 19th Century changed all that. In the crude dichotomy of the Sacred and the Profane it relegated to the latter category all aspects of life other than the tenets of its own system. All elements of culture which did not fall within its own paradigm were labelled as being worldly and therefore profane.

It gets to the heart of the problem: this kind of conservative religion is the very opposite of life-affirming, because it despises and fears life. Far from being something to be enjoyed and relished, explored and revelled in, life is a booby-trapped obstacle course, full of potentially soul-destroying lures and temptations. The only way to negotiate it successfully is to keep your eyes cast firmly downward, so as not to allow yourself to be distracted from the sole purpose of reaching the end safely. It is so limiting, so narrow, so joyless - it actually enrages me that people are encouraged to squander their lives in this terrible way. Life is so exciting, so full of potential, so full of questions to ask and astonishing answers to discover - it's not just a waste to shut yourself off from it for fear it will lead you astray, it's a criminal waste.

311. Fleabytes

Comment #139576 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 6:05 am

Vijikumar: This is my first post.

Welcome, Viji! Good to have you with us. Yes - the one thing you can depend on is that this website is NEVER dull!

312. Fleabytes

Comment #139574 by Paula Kirby on March 6, 2008 at 6:00 am

Richard Morgan: I am sure that for many, feeling loved and accepted completely eclipses issues such as intelligent design, the young Earth theory and logical fallacies.

AND

As long as Christianity continues to sell love, forgiveness and acceptance, it will stay in business. And if it has to abandon its grotesque, pseudo-scientific posturing, it will not make a shred of difference to the millions who echo the Beatles' "All you need is love."

AND

This also explains, perhaps, why there is always a feeling, when Christians talk science, that in the last analysis, there is nothing really at stake for them.

Richard, I couldn't agree with you more. This IS what keeps Christianity going in most cases. All the attempts to portray it as logical, rational, even almost scientific, are really just attempts to shore it up and are, ultimately, irrelevant to the faith of the believers.

The thing is, humans are emotional as well as rational beings, and our emotions do need to be looked after. There is nothing wrong with this - quite the reverse, in fact. If religion JUST concentrated on taking care of people emotionally - offering love, forgiveness, acceptance, a sense of community etc - who would fight it? This is where it could be argued to have real potential value.

But it's not content to do this - to act as a sort of informal Social Services. It is intent on declaring certain either FALSE or UNKNOWABLE statements to be TRUE. And worse - on condemning those people who don't agree that those false or unknowable statements are true. It is also intent on portraying those who don't accept these false or unknowable claims as incapable of leading a full and moral life. And on imposing these false "truths" on young, impressionable minds, and on clinging to temporal power and even extending it, wherever it can. And, of course, it clings to the bizarre and entirely reprehensible story of hell, scarring minds for life with images of both the utmost horror and the utmost LUNACY.

This is actually quite tragic. Religion COULD perhaps do some good in the world, if it would just stop pretending that it's more than it is.

Christians will no doubt argue that the truth claims of religion are the source of the comfort provided to believers and that you couldn't have the one without the other. I'm actually not so sure this is true. There are other ways of making someone feel accepted, valued and loved without lying to them about being reunited with Auntie Mabel in the afterlife.

There's something else to consider too, and that is that many churches are actually very BAD at doing the things that I'm accepting that religion is sometimes good at. The more fundamentalist the church, the more you will hear its members make statements such as, "I'm a miserable wretch" and "I don't know what depravities I might be capable of if it weren't for my faith"; and the more you will hear its members roundly condemning one another for their alleged contraventions of the church's moral teachings, or asserting that someone's sufferings must have been the result of their sins. Taken literally, there is much in Christian teaching that actively works AGAINST our human emotional needs.

So I guess I'm accepting that religion can provide much-needed emotional support, and that, when it does, this is a good thing. But at the same time, I'm arguing that a) this is no excuse for the truth claims that go with it, b) that religion is not the only way of supplying this emotional support, and c) that religion isn't always as good at this as it likes to think.

313. Fleabytes

Comment #139467 by Paula Kirby on March 5, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Iknow this is off the topic of the original thread...but honestly it's terrible to read religious literature. It's agonizing

Actually, Robotaholic, I think that's very much ON the topic of the original thread, and an admirable summary of what it took me page after page of reviews to say, too!

314. Fleabytes

Comment #139265 by Paula Kirby on March 5, 2008 at 12:32 pm

_J_: Great to see you back, _J_! Thanks for putting me straight on that. I knew you posted on the FCOS forum and thought it was under the name of Jonathan so I'm afraid I assumed it was you. Apologies. So we have someone else to thank for those posts! I wonder who ...?

On your point about the censorship on FCOS, I'd like to think you were right, but I'm not convinced in this case, I'm afraid. How do you account for the post in question having appeared and then disappeared? I've seen David's explanation, but it seems to contradict his own forum's moderation policy:

FCOS forum: You then send a post which will be picked up by one of the moderators who will then decide whether to post it or not. It works more like a newspaper letter than a completely open forum.

In other words, posts don't just automatically appear on the forum, as they do here. Someone must have approved it before it first appeared .... only for someone else to have unapproved it afterwards.

And if it now appears again, should we do a David Robertson impression and start squeaking that he was "forced to unban it", do you suppose? ;-)

315. Fleabytes

Comment #139157 by Paula Kirby on March 5, 2008 at 8:26 am

Richard Morgan: It seems to have developed an existence of its own which no longer has a great deal to do with Paula's review.

Does that matter? Threads thread, that's what they do - just like face-to-face conversations, which are triggered by one thing but then develop a life of their own and frequently end up somewhere quite different but equally interesting.

There have been bits of this thread that have been wildly off-topic, but so far they've always found their way back; and the excursion that's taken place over the last 24 hours or so has been absolutely fascinating.

To me it doesn't matter if a conversation doesn't stick closely to the thread topic, provided it's relevant to the objectives of the website as a whole - i.e. discussion of atheism, science and religion. And the last few pages have been bursting at the seams with that. Please don't discourage it! Why not take your coat off after all and sit down and enjoy the discussion?

316. Fleabytes

Comment #138682 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 5:24 pm

David: Yes - I was wrong. Sorry. Glad to hear that a neutral will chair the questioning. Still don't understand why someone needs to give the names of the people they are bringing with them? Whats the problem?

OK, I'll try typing it slowly and see if that helps. The arrangements for the allocation of the tickets were made by UHI who, quite rightly, did not feel the need to consult either Richard or myself about them in advance. It is UHI's event, and it was therefore entirely UHI's decision.

However, as I understand it, their thinking is that they don't want to risk people reserving seats without having already identified people to fill them. That's why someone booking, say, 4 tickets, will have to give the names of the 4 people attending. UHI's concern was that, if they didn't do this, someone might book 4 tickets in the hopes of finding people to fill them, but then not be able to do so, thus depriving other people of the opportunity to attend.

Since neither UHI nor the staff at Eden Court Theatre (who are taking the bookings) have any way at all of knowing whether Fred Bloggs is a Christian, an atheist or a Hindu, there can be no danger of tickets being allocated along religious lines. Quite apart from which, why on earth would anyone want to? What's going to make for the more interesting event - one where everyone's nodding their head in agreement, or one that stirs up real debate? Your attempts to imply that Richard is not prepared to face rigorous challenges from Christians are just silly. If that's how he felt, he could stay at home.

And it still hardly promises to be anything other than a highly weighted one sided promotion of an anti-God diatribe. Dawkins believes that belief in God is a delusion and detrimental to science. You agree with him and have had the 'WOW' experience of hearing his views. You are hardly going to be rigourous in questioning. Are you there in your capacity as a writer on this website? Or because of your job?

UHI run a series of public lectures. One lecturer per lecture - one point of view represented. On this occasion the lecturer is Richard Dawkins, and the views will be his. Later in the year UHI will redress the balance by holding an event with a prominent theist who will have precisely the same opportunity to put his views across. A debate might have been fun, but it was not what UHI wanted. Are your events on your lecture tours always formal debates with atheists, or do you simply put your point of view and then take questions afterwards? Why is that format ok for you, but unacceptable for Richard Dawkins? Particularly since, in this case, the host organisation did not want a debate.

As for the interview, the standard format in an event like this would have been for Richard to simply give a presentation. That, of course, would have been entirely what he wanted to say, in the way he wanted to say it, pre-prepared. He suggested an interview as an alternative. There is no secrecy about this: the interview is not intended to be a Jeremy Paxmanesque grilling, it is simply a more spontaneous, hopefully more interesting way of eliciting his views. Stating his views so that he can then be questioned and challenged on them by the audience is what he has been invited to do.

My participation in the event has nothing whatsoever to do with my job, unless you count the fact that my job entails a fair bit of interviewing/facilitation in this kind of style and has therefore given me some experience of it.

It's really no good, David - you can niggle and twist and imply all you like, but the whole thing is really very straightforward. No censorship. No rigging. No fixing. No vetting. No conspiracy. Quite simply: Richard will have the opportunity to state his views and the audience will then have the opportunity to challenge him on them. Later in the year a prominent theist will be able to do precisely the same thing. I'm sorry to disappoint you.

317. Fleabytes

Comment #138639 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Clearthinker: A stage managed conversation between RD and one of his followers, followed by vetted questions from people who have to be named before they can even get tickets.

Neither stage-managed nor vetted, actually. How do you suppose that giving names will lead to the audience being vetted so as to exclude vociferous Christians? Do you imagine that UHI has a list with the names of all Highland Christians on it? Names are being required so as to prevent people booking blocks of tickets (which are free, don't forget) with the intention of using them all, and then not doing so. In other words, they will be required to have already found people to take them, not just take them on spec. Quite apart from which, the nitty-gritty of these arrangements is not something that either Richard or I have been remotely involved in - you cannot seriously be suggesting that either of us stipulated how the tickets should be allocated! I have also already told you that questions will not need to be submitted in advance, so no opportunity for vetting there either. Please don't let that interfere with your paranoia, though - it's quite amusing to watch.

Paula: There will be a whole hour for audience Q&A after the interview, so they will have plenty of opportunity to challenge Richard on his views. Given the role of religion in the Highlands, I'd be very surprised if that session didn't become, shall we say, lively.

David: But I'm sure you will control it! Do you not think that you should declare an interest and that someone neutral should lead the discussion? Otherwise the charge of nepotism and control will be made.

Wrong again. I won't even be on the stage during the Q&A with the audience. That part of the evening will be facilitated by someone else - UHI are trying to get a journalist. Not that this will stop you levelling the charge of nepotism and control anyway (despite apparently not even knowing what nepotism means).

318. Fleabytes

Comment #138628 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Brian: Religion gives us an out against depression and negative emotions like anxiety and worthlessness.

I agree with this. Yet there is a real paradox here, because religion simultaneously reinforces those feelings of worthlessness! Remember the comment about humans being polluted? Who hasn't heard Christians talk about what wretches they are? Or say they can't be sure what depths of depravity they wouldn't sink to without their faith to keep them on the straight and narrow?

319. Fleabytes

Comment #138621 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Bonzai: Probably not the only one, but the most common one.

I'm not at all sure I agree with that. There are far more constructive ways of dealing with problems and difficulties. It seems to me that both religion and pills (other than in cases of medical depression) simply mask the problem rather than actually deal with it.

320. Fleabytes

Comment #138612 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Bonzai: Do you think taking pills is a better route to address that?

No, certainly not. But do you think that taking pills is the only alternative?

321. Fleabytes

Comment #138602 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Brian: So, if someone feels anxiety, lonliness, etc, these stances will motivate the individual to seek to change the situation. If a religion offers a salve to the emotion, irrational as it may be, it removes the emotion, or attenuates it. Problem solved. The believers self-deception "module" will enable the believer to sincerely hold his/her faith, in spite of its irrationality.
How's that?

Very succinct and very accurate, I would say. The other "advantage" of religion as an antidote to the perceived problems in our lives is that it's a whole lot easier than actually facing up to them and doing something positive about them.

322. Fleabytes

Comment #138595 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Thanks, Styrer. It's strange looking back on that time now. It feels like a completely different me. Although I was never conscious of feeling oppressed by my beliefs at the time, the sense of coming up for air when I finally emerged from them was just enormous.

I think this is one reason why I found the flea books so grim: they reminded me all too strongly of the oppressive life I am only too happy to have escaped from.

PS. I do hope no one will be surprised when the theists start swooping and saying EITHER "Aha! You can't ever really have been a Christian if that's how you felt about it / if you didn't believe in hell and/or [insert dogma of choice here] / if you could just walk away from it"; OR "But that's not my religion you escaped from!"

323. Fleabytes

Comment #138568 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

secondsoprano: (To which the answer is yes! very much so!) and of introducing myself ... a long time lurker

Welcome to the website, secondsoprano. Glad you've stopped lurking. It's much more fun when you take part! And I'm glad you recognised what I was talking about in my long post above too - it helps to make me feel ever so slightly less embarrassed about it!

324. Fleabytes

Comment #138526 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Robotaholic: You know - when I learn about biology from Professor Dawkins, or when I learn about Cosmology from Carl Sagan I get the same feeling.

Yes, me too! I doubt whether they'd have had the same effect on me at the time when I was turning to Christianity, though. Or perhaps they would. It just wouldn't have ever crossed my mind to try them at that time. That's where the childhood indoctrination (mild as it was in my case) comes in, I suppose.

325. Fleabytes

Comment #138500 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm

This is such an interesting discussion. And a crucially important one, I feel. If we are to make any headway at all against irrational beliefs, we simply HAVE to understand why people hold them. I would contend that no - or very few - Christians believe that the idea that God created the world, a talking snake persuaded Eve to eat a piece of fruit, sin and evil and suffering entered the world as a result, Jesus came to take the consequences on himself, and was resurrected from the dead in order to give eternal life in paradise to the believers and eternal torment in hell to the godless - was RATIONAL. Surely no one ever looked at that proposition intellectually and concluded that yes, that made sense in rational terms.

We simply HAVE to take emotions into account when trying to understand any of this stuff. I flinch a little when I see accusations of hypocrisy levelled against believers. There is a huge difference between being deluded and being hypocritical. I definitely believe some would-be believers ARE hypocritical, and that the higher you climb the theo-illogical tree, the more hypocrites you will find. But your average believer is genuine, I'm quite sure. Genuine - but misguided.

I was explaining to a friend recently that I accounted for my earlier embrace of Christianity in purely emotional terms. I was at a very low ebb, feeling I'd made a mess of everything in my life; I'd had enough of a training in Christianity as a child - Sunday school, school assemblies - to attempt to find consolation there; and I found it. I found a message that "all shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well". I found comfort in the concept that an all-powerful being could forgive me even though at that time I couldn't forgive myself for the various mistakes I'd made. I found the message that, if only I'd followed this being's plans for me, these various unpleasant experiences wouldn't have befallen me. I found comfort in the idea that an all-powerful being loved me at a time when I didn't love myself. The message that I was unworthy fell on receptive ears. It made perfect sense (in emotional terms). I've always had an ear for beautiful language, and the bible teems with it. It all reinforces the effect.

So I went to church and I found a group of kind, friendly people who made me feel welcome and accepted. There was rhythm and pattern and familiarity, and these things were all soothing.

And as I was reminiscing my friend challenged me by saying, "Yes, but you're forever saying now that just because something makes you feel good doesn't make it true."

And that was absolutely right. Just because something makes you feel good DOESN'T mean it must be true. My point is that the decision to embrace Christianity (in those who come to it later in life) isn't made in such rational terms. I didn't question for ONE MOMENT whether what was being proposed by Christianity was RATIONAL. It simply fulfilled an emotional need at the time.

Did I believe it? YES. I really did. And yet there were so many of the details that I didn't believe, not ever. I never believed in hell, or a devil, or Adam and Eve, or biblical inerrancy, or anything like that. I was never even lured by the prospect of eternal life - in fact, then, as now, I found the prospect distinctly offputting. I simply believed in a good, loving, accepting, forgiving, powerful God who could take what I felt was the mess of my life and turn it into something good. I believed in a FEELING. I had found something that seemed to make sense of everything and that seemed to offer some kind of solution. THAT was the "truth" of what I believed. And I interpreted everything in the bible in that light, and easily rejected those parts of the bible that contradicted it. I was never remotely fundamentalist - how could I be, when so much of the bible went against the loving, benevolent God that had been created by my need? I never believed for one moment that Muslims, for instance - or even atheists! - were condemned to hell for not being Christian. I needed my God to much more generous than that, so he was. And believing that there was a generous, loving God in the world felt, to me, to allow me to be more generous and loving myself. And the effect of that seemed to reinforce my belief and prove that it must be true.

The really bizarre thing about all this is the way the emotions completely drown out reason and make the patient utterly oblivious to the fact that they're being irrational. One or two of my friends tried to convince me of the irrationality of my beliefs, using arguments that I find myself using now - but they were utterly powerless to shake my conviction. I rejoiced in the apparent irrationality and saw it as confirmation of the astonishing mystery and awesomeness of the God I believed in.

I find this acutely embarrassing to write about now and I would willingly pretend it had never happened but for the fact that I think we will get nowhere unless we face up to the fact that religious belief is - in many, many cases - about emotional need, rather than about actual belief. For several years I went along with a whole host of stuff I really didn't literally believe, simply because that was the deal: that was part of the package that came with "my God". And it was easily dealt with through resorting to the catch-all of metaphor. Was I being hypocritical? I swear I never felt more sincere in all my life.

That day in church that I have referred to many times now, when I was suddenly struck by the thought, "Hang on - I just don't BELIEVE that!", was at one and the same time both a complete surprise and also an absolute recognition - by which I mean that it was more like acknowledging something that had been there for a long time, albeit unconsciously suppressed, rather than being struck by an altogether new thought. I am so glad that I was by that time able to put my beliefs under the microscope and test whether they stood up to scrutiny - and of course they didn't. But whether I'd have reached the same conclusion two years earlier I seriously doubt.

One of the most telling influences at the time when I was in the process of relinquishing my beliefs was the recognition that, actually, the Christians I knew were almost without exception significantly less joyful, generous, kind, sane, fun and balanced than the atheists I knew. This influenced me far more than any purely rational argument could have done. After all, if there really was an all-powerful, all-loving, life-transforming God, how come the people who spent such a large proportion of their lives in his company were so grey and so joyless and so petty?

I am not for one moment denigrating rational arguments. I think they're hugely important. I just doubt that they win all that many converts. I suspect that people stop believing at the point where they feel able to face their lives without their beliefs; and that the rational arguments are then helpful in reassuring them that their new-found lack of belief is both reasonable and sensible.

I'd be very interested to hear whether any other former Christians can relate to what I have described here.

326. Fleabytes

Comment #138156 by Paula Kirby on March 4, 2008 at 2:17 am

Steve Z: OK. I'll take a break on this thread until things calm down. I don't want to provoke any more posts like that.

I think you'd be wiser to just ignore him and carry on posting as usual. That's what the rest of us will do, I'm sure.

327. Fleabytes

Comment #137911 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Dr Benway - this one's even better!

Theist: This thing you call "spelling" cannot contain the laughter of a child.

Just perfect.

328. Fleabytes

Comment #137893 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Steve: Oh, Steve, thank you. That deep red glow on the northern horizon is nothing to worry about - just me blushing.

329. Fleabytes

Comment #137863 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Quetz: the prize is dinner with Alastair McGrath.

"I think what I would like to eat would be ...."

330. Fleabytes

Comment #137853 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 2:31 pm

2974. Comment #137827 by Steve Zara on March 3, 2008 at 2:15 pm
and
2977. Comment #137832 by kaiserkriss on March 3, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Brilliant posts!

331. Fleabytes

Comment #137841 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Reverend Dark: http://richarddawkins.net/article,536,God-Is-Not-a-Moderate,Sam-Harris-and-Andrew-Sullivan-Beliefnetcom
Thanks so much for posting this link, Shayne. I hadn't yet discovered this website when this was put on it, so I missed it first time around. Sam Harris is just staggeringly good, isn't he? Unfailingly polite, unfailing unrattled, unfailing articulate, unfailingly arrow-like with his logic. I am more and more impressed by him. There was so much in this email exchange that was excellent, but these two quotes from Sam stand out for me even more than the rest. The first, because it made me laugh with its oh-so-reasonable yet oh-so-uncompromising tell-it-like-it-is-ness:

Finally, let me make it clear that I do not consider religious moderates to be "mere enablers of fundamentalist intolerance." They are worse.

And the second, because it so perfectly encapsulates the inherent self-contradiction of the theist position, as well as the nonsense of the way they try to represent this self-contradiction as something somehow noble:

You want to have things both ways: your faith is reasonable but not in the least bound by reason; it is a matter of utter certainty, yet leavened by humility and doubt; you are still searching for the truth, but your belief in God is immune to any conceivable challenge from the world of evidence. I trust you will ascribe these antinomies to the paradox of faith; but, to my eye, they remain mere contradictions, dressed up in velvet.

It's a long exchange, but it deals with so many of the issues that keep coming up time and time again that it is WELL worth reading if anyone hasn't already.

332. Fleabytes

Comment #137774 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 1:17 pm

2938. Comment #137767 by Dr Benway on March 3, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Excellent post, Dr Benway. And a perfect example of a genuine, good, immediately identifiable metaphor. Watch and learn, Artful Dodger, watch and learn.

333. Fleabytes

Comment #137618 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 9:05 am

Artful Dodger: Paula, as the topic of the event is going to be both science and religion, would it not be better to chair a debate of some kind rather than only a conversation with Dawkins?

The event is being organised by UHI (University of the Highlands & Islands Millennium Institute), not by me, and so it was up to them to decide on the format. The event with Richard forms part of their series of public lectures, so they didn't feel that a debate format would be appropriate. Instead, they will hold a balancing event later in the year - they were trying to get Alister McGrath, but David Robertson's post the other day suggested it would be John Lennox. Either way, the theists will have their day too.

The purpose of the interview is to allow Richard the opportunity to explain his views on a number of issues relating to science and religion, though in a much more spontaneous way than could be achieved in a formal presentation (which was the alternative).

There will be a whole hour for audience Q&A after the interview, so they will have plenty of opportunity to challenge Richard on his views. Given the role of religion in the Highlands, I'd be very surprised if that session didn't become, shall we say, lively.

334. Fleabytes

Comment #137553 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 6:33 am

2839. Comment #137552 by Quetzalcoatl on March 3, 2008 at 6:27 am
Quetz, you are a star! Well done for copying the response. And _J_ (for he is the writer of both the initial challenge to DR and this follow-up to it) is a star too.

So much for Robertson's commitment to free speech!

335. Fleabytes

Comment #137549 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 6:24 am

Dr Benway: Narcissists seem to enjoy their elastic relationship with reality.

I'm sure that's true. I wonder whether there might not be something else at play in David Robertson's case, though. The Free Church is a particularly judgemental, condemnatory church, which seems to delight in pointing out people's shortcomings and finding fault at every opportunity. If you have spent a long time in that environment, I can imagine that you would eventually become highly defensive, and that you might feel the need to portray yourself in the best possible light all the time in order to protect yourself from possible criticism. This kind of hyper-critical environment does not encourage honest self-appraisal.

336. Fleabytes

Comment #137511 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 3:11 am

I am almost slightly annoyed with myself for giving him even the slightest taste of ammunition to show your and Professor Dawkins's reputations in completely false ways, you guys deserve way better than that. But, he will always find something to play the victim with, always has done, always will do, regardless of what I type. I very much doubt anything I typed had much to do with his outburst,

I really wouldn't worry about it for a moment, Philip. We all know that everything we do - or don't do - will be twisted by him until it fits the distorted image of us that he's desperate to promote. It really makes no difference. That doesn't mean we have to let him get away with it when he tries it though!

What he's really hoping, through his policy of attacking anything and everything we do and say, is to intimidate us into not daring to do or say anything any more. Something tells me it's not going to work.

337. Fleabytes

Comment #137501 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 2:18 am

Philip: I am so happy to hear you are going to be talking with Professor Dawkins, I wish you all the best with that and I look forward to watching it on this site.

Thank you. Yes, I'm very happy about it too!

It's going to take the form of an interview rather than a conversation as such, the idea being that this will allow his views to be drawn out in a more natural and spontaneous way than a formal presentation. I shall be trying to avoid the obvious questions that come up again and again, since there's no doubt they'll be covered in the Q&A afterwards anyway; and we'll be talking about science as well as his views on religion.

If anyone on this site would like to suggest some really interesting questions to put to Richard, I'd be delighted to receive them. It's an important part of the spontaneous character of the interview that we're aiming for, though, that I don't let him know in advance what I'm going to be asking - so if you have suggestions, could you send them to me by PM please?

338. Fleabytes

Comment #137500 by Paula Kirby on March 3, 2008 at 2:12 am

2810. Comment #137479 by Philip1978 on March 3, 2008 at 1:22 am

Well, so far as I can see, you put a couple of posts on this thread challenging David to respond. Content-wise, they match David's description fairly accurately, but one atheist posting on the RD website is not quite what he's claiming:

David Robertson on FC forum: When Richard Dawkins asked Paula Kirby to write a review of mine, and other Christian books, I was sent several e-mails by atheists accusing me of cowardice, running away and not being able to refute Paula's arguments.

Besides, David's item on the FC forum tries to suggest that it was only because of these several emails that he was drawn back to the RD website at all; whereas in fact he'd already posted a comment about my review before you, Philip, posted yours (Comment #130579 by clearthinker on February 21, 2008 at 12:34 am) So that's another misrepresentation.

Oh, and when he finally "came out" about his true identity on this website, he only referred to "a letter" that had prompted his doing so: not "several letters".

Comment #130685 by clearthinker on February 21, 2008 at 6:46 am I received a letter from someone on this website accusing me of cowardice for running away and for not replying to Northern Bright and also for lying about the quotes I have used from this site.

So which was it, I wonder?

I realise I'm running the risk of becoming boringly over-forensic about all this, but deviousness, distortion and manipulation are particular bugbears of mine, and are guaranteed to anger and disgust me almost more than anything else.

By the way, when searching Clearthinker's comments I came across this post, posted whilst he was still pretending not to be David Robertson.

29. Same Flea, Different Name? Comment #88242 by clearthinker on November 15, 2007 at 2:24 pm Has anyone done a comparison on the various 'flea' books and 'anti-flea books'? It was interesting to read the views of Daniel O;Hara former president of the National Secular Society in the Free Church's Monthly Record - see http://www.freechurch.org/magazines/monthlyrecord.htm for November.

Disingenuous much?

339. Fleabytes

Comment #137329 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Lorien: Not really. Anyone with half a brain can see through his desperate attempt to save face.

Well, we can because we know what really happened. Whether the people on his forum who are just dependent on his version of events can see through him so easily is doubtful, I think.

340. Fleabytes

Comment #137315 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Following ScottishGeologist's post ("your own message board makes it look like your church is obsessed with Dawkins. The way it looks tonight does nothing to change that perception"), I took a look at the Free Church website forum myself, and found this from David Robertson (http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.105):

I was banned several times - as David Robertson, as St Petes, as the Wee Flea and I think a couple of others.

I was only able to post as 'Clearthinker' because Josh the webmaster, and Dawkins, did not know who I was. I was informed by Josh that I was banned because my views 'caused arguments'.

I'm just going to interrupt him there. He may have been told that his posts caused arguments, but I'm quite sure it wouldn't have been his "views" that he was banned for. How many Christians have been banned from this website for their "views"? How many Christians have posted their views here at length without ever coming anywhere near a ban? So no, David, it's not your views. It's your behaviour. It's YOU.

Having been told directly that I was banned and that any posts under my name, or any name which I cared to use, would be removed, I then decided to get a life and had not been near the Dawkins website for many weeks...

When Richard Dawkins asked Paula Kirby to write a review of mine, and other Christian books, I was sent several e-mails by atheists accusing me of cowardice, running away and not being able to refute Paula's arguments.

OK, own up, any of you atheists out there who did this.

I wrote them and told them I would not post until I was 'unbanned'. I also posted on the Dawkins website stating the same thing. Quite a few atheists picked up on what to them was a clear contradiction - how can you be posting if you are banned? Obviously because I was posting under another name.

Just going to interrupt him again there. So he's saying that he was posting on the website that he'd like to respond to my review of his book but only if the ban on him was lifted - and that somehow Josh didn't rumble the fact that this was David Robertson writing? Who else could it have been? There can have been no doubt in ANYONE's mind at this stage that Clearthinker was David Robertson.

I also said that I would not post any reply to Paula's until I was guaranteed that my posts would not be removed. The reason for this is simple - I know that the minute I express my views they are met with vitriol and abuse - and then I get the blame for causing people to be vitriolic and abusive!

Ah, it's such a shame, isn't it. And when his views are expressed so mildly and sweetly too. Really, guys, we should be ashamed of ourselves for picking on the poor, innocent soul.

Also more than 300 posts from the original thread (including many of my own) were removed months after they had been written.

Really removed, I wonder? Or simply moved to an "alternate thread"?

I think Josh (and one assumes Dawkins) had decided (correctly) that they were bad publicity for the cause and just removed them.

By which he means that he'd like to think that they were removed because they were bad publicity for the cause. He's also desperate to convince himself and others that we suppress anything that goes against our views. And that we're REALLY scared by his arguments because they're just so darn good. Yup. It's as we feared. Totally deluded.

I did not want that to happen again. So I sought the assurance that I would be unbanned.

Then, contrary to what you say in point 3, Dawkins himself wrote on the thread and stated that I was unbanned. And then I began to post a reply. Dawkins obviously reads every post on his own website because he then intervened again - first to remove the death threat and then to confirm that Paula had been asked to reply to my book.

Excuse me? How do three posts on one thread mean that Richard "obviously" reads every post on his website?

In the course of which he called me nasty, mean-spirited, ungenerous and unchristian, as well as an unpleasant fruitcake! I guess the book got to him....

The book? Or David's malicious suggestion about RD.net's being ashamed of my review? Note how David completely omits any reference to what prompted the response he got. He does love to play the little innocent, doesn't he.

Dawkins was forced to unban me, because it looked ridiculous that he had commissioned an article to criticise my book, and then was refusing to let me respond.

I'm still interested to know who David thinks "forced" Richard to do anything at all on his own website. In reality, and as anyone who cares to look back through the posts can see, Richard simply confirmed that David was free to respond to my article. Note how David makes this sound like a big climb-down, when in fact it was simple confirmation of what everyone could see already anyway - that David's posts were not being removed!

There is no misunderstanding. The situation is clear. The fact that even with this plain, simple, and evidenced account of things, some atheists still manage to turn this into 'this is another one of Robertsons' lies', is yet another indication of the twisted and surreal world of the Dawkins website. And the language, lack of argumentation and the sheer hatred is obvious to anyone who reads the thread on the Dawkins website. I am sorry I ever returned.

Don't you just love it? What a master of the art of misrepresentation this man is.

341. Fleabytes

Comment #137266 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I keep meaning to procrastinate, but somehow I never seem to get around to it.

342. Fleabytes

Comment #137229 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Brian English: I guess what I was trying to say is that there's really not much to be gained from us (excluding you and a few other level headed posters) dealing with the guy as we seem just to end up in a slanging match which he then distills down to his usual bunk about all atheists and their evil attributes.

Well, actually, I'd go even further. David Robertson will twist and distort whatever we do - and whatever we DON'T do - for his own purposes. If we argue with him, he'll claim that we're running scared of his arguments. If we don't, he'll claim that we can't. Look at the way he's used both being banned and NOT being banned from the website - it's classic Robertson twist and pout.

SG: Not sure maths is your strong point, I'm afraid! :-)

343. Fleabytes

Comment #137210 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Brian: EDIT: I think Paula should address any serious comments he makes

I already have. It's all in the review. And on that basis I think I've suffered enough!

344. Fleabytes

Comment #137204 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 2:07 pm

You only think that the text has been rewritten a number of times is because you have been told that. I have seen no evidence for that

Well, we can't say it's not a sound principle. Here are some variations on the theme that he might like to consider:

You only think that the universe was created by God in six days because you have been told that. I have seen no evidence for that.

You only think that evil was introduced into the world due to "The Fall" because you have been told that. I have seen no evidence for that.

You only think that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth because you have been told that. I have seen no evidence for that.

You only think that the bible is the inerrantly inspired word of God because you have been told that. I have seen no evidence for that.

You only think that Jesus rose from the dead because you have been told that. I have seen no evidence for that.

You only think that you're going to live for ever because you have been told that. I have seen no evidence for that.

I could go on, but you get my drift.

345. Fleabytes

Comment #137184 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Hello: Which scientific advance is that, then?

Now, now, Hello, don't you know it's sinful to put yourself into debt? No adding to the questions you've already asked us (and had answered) until you start answering the ones we've put to you. Time to put up or shut up.

346. Fleabytes

Comment #137139 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm

RickM: Thanks for the interesting link, Rick. I was also interested in the exchange immediately following the one you refer to, when David writes:

Because we live in a bent universe sometimes it is right to lie. For example if I was hiding some Jews in my house during the Second World war and the Nazis came in and asked me if I had any - I would lie. To say 'I cannot tell a lie - they are upstairs' would be sinful...

I'm sure none of us would disagree about his point about lying to save hiding Jews from the Nazis - I just wish I didn't get the feeling he applies the same principle when writing to or about us.

347. Fleabytes

Comment #137130 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 11:56 am

SRWB: Is it just me or did everybody else take the 'throwaway survival machines' too seriously?

I agree that he intended it as a cheap shot, and would further say that its primary purpose was to get him out of having to engage properly with our arguments. We are used to such behaviour from him and have learned not to expect better. But to exploit the tragedy of grieving parents for such trivial ends was, in my view, utterly unforgivable. So no, I don't think we took it too seriously.

348. Fleabytes

Comment #137119 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 11:26 am

Steve Zara: I remember that post, and it was one of the most shocking I have seen on this site. It implied that we were somehow inhuman, and something between nihilists and wicked. It took a while to sink in that anyone could post like that, not just making use of a dreadful tragedy, but using it in that way.

Yes, it was utterly vile. It beggars belief that anyone could post in such malevolent terms - let alone try to claim the moral high ground at the same time. Utterly despicable.

349. Fleabytes

Comment #137108 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 11:05 am

Deepthought: What were the real reasons for his banning? I'm fairly certain his are slightly skewed.

If you click on this link you will find all the posts he made under his "Wee Flea" user name. http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,8260 If you then click on individual posts in the listing, you'll be taken through to the original thread, where you can see them in context.

As an alternative, you could take a look at this thread in its entirety: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1685,Teacher-I-was-fired-said-Bible-isnt-literal,Megan-Hawkins-Des-Moines-Register

It was here, in my opinion, that his behaviour sank to new depths, and where it became absolutely impossible to pretend any longer that he was remotely interested in engaging in proper discussion with us and wasn't simply intent on distortion and abuse. It was also this thread that contained the paragraph that I sincerely hope (but also doubt) haunts his conscience to this day:

I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.

(163. Comment #74561 by The Wee Flea on September 29, 2007 at 2:22 pm)

350. Fleabytes

Comment #137021 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 6:34 am

Quetz: I notice that someone has posted a response to David Robertson's post on the FCOS forum-

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg178#msg178

It was posted by Jonathan - aka _J_. Which reminds me that we haven't seen him on this forum for ages. Well, I haven't, anyway. _J_, where are you?

As for whether his post will be left on the FCOS forum, I thought I'd read somewhere that they had a policy of pre-moderating posts now - if that's the case (it might not be), it would seem that this one has already been approved by the official censor and presumably will be allowed to stay.