351. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69207 by Veronique on September 10, 2007 at 2:25 am

PaulEmecz – get a life worth living. These interminable debates about antithetical points of view are getting you nowhere.

Start your new life by being simple and gazing at the world you live in with awe and wonderment. Stop trying to tie a supernatural being to that wonderment. Just live it. If you don't understand something, let it be. Stop trying to fill in a certainty within an uncertain gap.

You are 35 years old; I think you said. Is that 35 years' experience or 1 year's experience repeated 35 times. There is a difference and I am sure you would agree. Try, just try, to see outside your squarely constrained and constructed view. You appear to me to be constantly trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Your posts are interminable, like Dianelos, like the Flea and like Biz (who thankfully seems to have pulled out of a race he could never have won).

It seems to me that all of you religiously inclined people who come up against the stark wall of logical argument seem to deteriorate into a seemingly ethical argument on morality. Unfortunately some of our posters get sucked into arguing back on purely logical grounds and that gives you the impetus to continue in arcane minutiae.

Sorry, I am not any of those. I would prefer to know how you live your day-to-day life. Please, I do not want you to disclose the mental machinations you must go through in order to reach a conclusive and deliberate action that includes your god belief. Must be a wee bit stultifying in normal life decision making.

I was never going to post another comment on this thread. However, having had several days away and coming back to this one again, all I can really say is that you need to get a life. Love your kid, stop this ridiculous rambling that, at the end of the day (I don't like that phrase!), has zilch to do with the practical way in which you live your life.

I have read your posts on morality – they went on forever. Forget the junk that you espouse, just live, knowing that you are, more than likely, going to make the right decision (ie. one that you can live with). That comes from your innate ability to judge what is advantageous to you and your fellows. That's community. That's life. That's being a societal human being. Stop trying to argue this to death. What does it advantage you or me or anyone else who is prepared to discuss this with you. Nothingsville!

Love your little boy, try to not deliberately slot him into your belief structures, attempt to allow him to come to his own conclusions about the mystery of human (and other) life. Don't inculcate him into your (inherited) belief system. Allow him to be free to come to his own conclusions (and be prepared to wait maybe 30 odd years) and then accept his conclusions as his own. Do not interfere in his mental and mystical meanderings. Give him your love and support for his own ideas that may gainsay your own. That's freedom. That's important. Your child will (all things being equal) outlive you. His is not your generation. Allow it as it must be. Don't influence more than you have to. Certainly don't indoctrinate him into your belief system.

You never know, he may be like me – no superstitious belief system whatsoever. And then, where would your ongoing relationship with him be? Don't box it in, my little dear. Your best bet is to leave him free. He will fly and, if you are worth it, he will settle his wings on your windowsill. And you will still have a good relationship with him. That's worth heaps.

I preferred your photograph as an avatar – the current one distances you:-).
V

352. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69197 by Veronique on September 10, 2007 at 1:13 am

153. Comment #69195 by owen m

They're not. It is the few who have a public page voice who are able to push their views.

The average christian doesn't give a shit. That's why the extremists have a foothold. The average christian doesn't see RD et al as a threat at all.

As RD and others have pointed out, that IS the problem. The religious moderates give a sort of credence to the extremists and won't gainsay them.

The moderate muslim doesn't give a shit either. The Wafa Sultans of the world are few indeed. Unfortunately her diatribes will have a counter-productive effect. The thing is that she is right and is game to say so. There are not many game people in this world. More's the pity.

Cheers
V

353. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69193 by Veronique on September 10, 2007 at 12:38 am

91. Comment #68774 by heathen2 and Lauregon (90)

I agree. I have never been subject to any religious cant in my life. I now have more books on religion in my bookshelves than I would have thought possible a couple of years ago.

Ahh. Such is the desire to learn. If only my religious and new-age friends had the same desire…

Their inherited faith leaves them as unmoved as did my previous atheistic stance – it is only now in times of potential global dire straits that I NEED to know what it is that the religiously inclined believe in. My friends can't really tell me because their belief was absorbed through the layers of their minds when they were children with no critical capacity at all.

The majority of them can't even address religiosity as a topic of discussion. It has always been with them and they can't intellectually distance themselves from it long enough to approach a critical analysis of what they have been led to believe from the year dot.

When I try to talk about the growing radicalising and politicising of the Abrahamic religions, they look bemused and amused and say: "Surely you don't believe that crap?" Their moderate religious armour is virtually impregnable. They certainly don't read anything that is likely to jolt their complacency in their own righteousness as believers in the god of their bibles.

This week's religi-board post is a quote from Seneca the Younger: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful.

I fear that my posts are just crying in the wind. I must, I must stay positive:-). Jonathan, excellent post:-).

Love to you all
V

354. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68810 by Veronique on September 8, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Here we go again - thanks pewkatchoo

I have justed posted this comment to Mr Howse:

Well, Mr Howse. Yet more articles coming out of the woodwork attempting to discredit Prof. Dawkins. You all misrepresent Dawkins. Take you first paragraph (someone else will take the last paragraph).
There is a strange triangle of forces between God, Richard Dawkins and his opponents. It is an unsymmetrical triangle, in that, although his opponents seem to hate Professor Dawkins and Professor Dawkins certainly hates God, God does not hate Professor Dawkins. That seems to stir the professor to ever greater efforts.
Firstly, there is no triangle; there are two camps – those who are atheists and those who are theists and/or deists. Secondly, Dawkins most certainly does not, indeed cannot, hate that which in all probability does not exist. Thirdly, Dawkins' popularity as a speaker comes not from him but from the media outlets. Dawkins' 'efforts' must weary him as he is confronted with the same, tired, old and circular unsupported non-arguments for the god of the bible.

It appears to me that all the religious apologists writing articles have caucused to cherry pick one or two specific points each from The God Delusion and hammer them. The cherry picked points are usually taken out of context and are rephrased using inflammatory language. And of course, there are the blatant, derogatory ad hominem attacks on Dawkins' character, integrity and scholarship.

I might point out that Cornwell's book does not demolish Dawkins' arguments; indeed it distorts and misrepresents his arguments instead. One could almost call Cornwell's book a deliberate untruth. And your little picky bits are of no consequence in the larger state of play. This is about religion and the dangers it represents to our lives, not some miniscule theological point.

In a modern world where people are encouraged to think and educate themselves, your attempts to stifle debate by writing about but not critically reading that which you write about leads me to believe that you are driven by the fear that the old religious myths are beginning to fall like a house of cards. In the 21st Century, as scientific evidence continues to come into its own, the reliance on a set of obviously flawed historical and imaginary religious myths seems sadly infantile to the rest of us. Our universe is full of a beauty unimagined by any holy book that I know.

Others will address other points in your little piece. Suffice to say, you, Cornwell, Alibhai-Brown, Vickers and a burgeoning group of other religious apologists are not doing your cause any good whatsoever. In very distasteful language, you attempt to smear the name of a man who has done more to bring to public access and awareness the biological sciences and research than anyone else in our times. Not one of you can lay claim to any such public good.

Why have you all waited until now to attack Dawkins' views on religious dogma? He started expounding his views some 30 years ago (in his first published book) and hasn't stopped. Neither should he. The growing internecine strife underscored by religious texts and dogma is truly frightening for all of us. Now that the collation of his ideas, expanded and explained in The God Delusion is making its mark on the book-seller lists, it appears that the rising shrillness exhibited by religious apologists in your articles denotes that sad of all positions: trying to close the door after the horse has bolted.

Veronique

See ya
V

355. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68565 by Veronique on September 7, 2007 at 3:57 pm

OK, OK - I couldn't resist:-)

Here is my comment to Madeleine's article:

I have noted before in my comments to articles written by Salley Vickers, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and others with regard to Dawkins' The God Delusion, that the 'shrillness' they perceive in Dawkins fades into insignificance against their own. Now we have Madeleine Bunting writing a very confused, shrill piece of polemic.

The words used by these three named women are very shrewish. They have lifted the tone of their articles to one of high screeching, as if their shouting will convince the rest of us to take them seriously. The aggression is all theirs. I have never seen aggression in Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or Onfray. Criticism and argument yes, and rightly so.

These religious apologists seem to want serious debate but are incapable of serving a considered opening round. I, like others, am starting to understand that instead of debate, they really want to highlight mendacious slander in an attempt to squash Dawkins' reasoned criticisms of religious dogma and its increasingly negative effect on education, foreign policy and critical thinking.

John Cornwell has proved the best at this tactic so far. He tells outright lies. Madeleine defends Cornwell and, in so doing, openly joins the ranks of those who tell lies for God.

I hope that what I see are the furious death throes of religious cant. I won't hold my breath, but my smile is getting wider by the minute.

There is no retreat from reason, Madeleine. Except, possibly, into a mental asylum.

Veronique

And now, back to gardening:-)
V

356. The Atheist

Comment #68047 by Veronique on September 5, 2007 at 8:45 pm

Since I had been thinking of leaving this site because I need to do something practical rather than indulge in talk-fests, I thought I would take a look at the earliest articles on this site as a 'until we meet again' tribute.

There are some beauties in this early lot, posted long before I joined RD's site. However this one interview encapsulates it all. This is why I kept reading Dawkins from the mid 80s onwards. This is the clarity with which I resonate.

My pater's friend, biologist Ian MacDonald, gave me The Selfish Gene to read in the 80s. It snuck into place in my head and gave me a firmed-up framework with which to view my world. Poor Ian got old and died, as did my pater. I miss them. Ian bequeathed his whole collection of Dawkins, Diamond, Quammen and Flannery to me. How wonderfully understanding he was. I treasure these books of his that added double copies to my library. More people to lend them to:-).

I have learnt one hell of a lot from Dawkins. Thank you very much RD.

I can't believe that BaronOchs is the only one to have commented on it and in March 07. Cut the current sound bites guys. Hey, I just realised that we haven't seen the Baron for a while. Now I think of it, there are a lot I haven't seen for ages. I must have been caught by the current sound bite as well:-). Gosh, who would have thought……

Bye, bye
V

357. In God we doubt

Comment #67835 by Veronique on September 5, 2007 at 1:28 am

I cannot get past the fact (?) that the religion of Christianity was born in the middle east and pertains to that region only (or pretty much so anyway). Didn't take into account the Chinese on the other side of the hemisphere, or the Australia that was peopled by the aborigines some 40,000 odd years ago (yeah you creationists let's go for 6,00 years – makes so much sense doesn't?). It doesn't recognise any area that was beyond the current trading and exploratory routes travelled by its peoples.

The big 3 Abrahamic religions only relate to a small geographic area on this globe. That's nuts to start with. It is also so unremittingly geocentric and utterly self-centred on the behaviour of human beings. Oh, god, I am so important!! Some omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenificent being takes interest in ME on this ruddy little pale blue dot!! Where are their heads at? I am sorry all you religites here, I just can't see you, or I, as significant in the scheme of things. It is an intellectual arrogance to which I cannot subscribe.

How anyone in his right mind can argue that the bible's olde worlde worldview and supernatural assumptions has anything whatsoever to do with the unfolding universe that we are starting to explore is way beyond my ability to understand. My feeling is that you should just wipe your hands and say "Oh, well, it was a good shot but it just doesn't work, does it?"

I read these quasi-arguments here and have tried and failed to understand.

Apparently we all need to have faith in something that is not evidenced and not falsifiable.

So why haven't I and millions of others got this 'need'? Apparently we all have to believe that our lack of 'need' is Satan's work. So there's a whole lot of palaver about Satan, who likewise can't be evidenced.

So why haven't I and millions of others got this 'fear' that if we don't have faith, we'll all go to hell in a hand basket?

Why all this pretend debating about a tissue of lies, wishful thinking and desperate fear?

I am thinking of leaving it all to you guys who are prepared to engage with mentally moribund believers in a moribund philosophy. Belief systems are ridiculous unless there's evidence. Scientific theories are worth the effort, existential discourse MAY be worth the effort, the stuff that goes on here – well, I get bored and would rather read.

Sorry, Russell, I am no philosopher of any particular discipline. At the level of practical living, I really don't give a flying fuck for the mainly mental meanderings of meticulous minds. But I like you:-).

Such perorations about the preposterous proposals of the pre-inclined protesters to a pre-determined progenitor is pathetic. I am just a pragmatic person living in a proper world with little in the way of pretentious posturings. I want no longer to address the BS that the bilious believers bring to this site. I bow out.

Cheers – see you round like a donut (US spelling- also gives me the shits)
V
I will probably not be able to stop posting anyway (hahaha – it's a little addictive:-)). But it won't ever be to these religious drips ever again. And I am not having a go at you Russell, please keep posting your gorgeous limericks. They lighten our moods:-). Please everyone, keep taking the mickey. I am not good at that; I just get cross. So I have to go. I am not contributing anything to this site. And I don't like being cross. My cats, being very aware of my moods, need more; they are not intellectually cognisant of my angst, except insofar as it affects them.

Bye-bye
V

358. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67793 by Veronique on September 4, 2007 at 8:29 pm

2098. Comment #67658 by Dr Benway

He is indeed enormously fond of beetles. However I think he is much more interested in viruses, myself:-). Sneaky, pesky, unseen little thingies that keep mutating because they get found out. Slippery little buggers, all of them. Try as we might to contain them, hold them up to scrutiny, develop ways and means calculated to destroy them, they slip through the net and we have to start all over again.

May be it's more helpful to call him The Great Virus. Seems more apt somehow:-).

I really do think everyone needs to get out more. Way back in Comment 1917, I thought this thread was going nowhere fast. It's getting faster but still going nowhere:-).

I'll check back sometime in the next 100 or so comments. A bit of living never goes astray:-).

Cheers
V

359. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67594 by Veronique on September 4, 2007 at 1:13 am

91. Comment #67586 by Mercury

This implies that imagination is required for a belief in God. Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Hahahaha. Don't tell her that creative imagination worked out how to develop the triple antigen vaccine and the polio immunisation, will you? Poor darling wouldn't understand why she is alive. She limits the power of imagination to her static and unchanging dogmatic beliefs.

One would feel sorry for her, BUT she has a public forum on which she can publish views that diminish everyone and advance not one iota of reason.

That pisses me off. That's why I think we all need to politicise our stance. I am starting to understand Russell's take on this.

Cheers
V

360. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67592 by Veronique on September 4, 2007 at 12:57 am

Sitting Duck

Check your blockquote instructions. I have only recently learned how to do this so I am chuffed.

big smile
Cheers
V

361. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #67585 by Veronique on September 4, 2007 at 12:18 am

I needed to listen to this again, just to put things in perspective:-)

This rant is such a terrific antidote to the seriousness of what we all know is happening on this poor old planet on which we try to live, isn't it?

This bloke and Carlin can lift my mood so quickly. I have been far too serious lately. I need the balance.

Thank you Brigstoke!!
V

362. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67559 by Veronique on September 3, 2007 at 7:40 pm

88. Comment #67543 by Goldy

I am beginning to realise that we must contact these people every time they post articles. I love coming onto this site and I find solace in all the posts here, well most:-)

I think it is this site that gives me the temerity and courage to stand up and confront the irrationality of others. I must say that I never before thought of writing letters to these people. The religi-board outside my house was a result of my coming here (plus my friend who also thought of it as a way to reduce my angst).

I am pleased to add my little voice to the swelling choir:-). I want to be as considered as I can be in writing to them. At least I can rant here and let off steam:-).

I have never been to Europe; Logicel thinks it would be good for me to get out and about a bit. Maybe one day - I know I would experience feelings like yours. I would love the architecture, the BIG mountains (there aren't any in Australia). Venice would take my breath (and dosh) away!

Poor Yasmin, poor Salley, they just don't get what humanity is about, do they? All they see is their little world (and fear, of course).

Wasn't the lunar eclipse gorgeous? Of course the medschool email system would have been full of photographs!! How wonderful.

Cheers
V

363. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67536 by Veronique on September 3, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Good Morning all.

I have read through your posts on this article and have emailed the following response to Ms. Alibhai. Thanks for the help your posts gave in marshalling my thoughts. I think we all should respond to her.

Ms Alibhai-Brown,

I have just read your comment in the Independent and want to respond to some things you say.

To begin with however, I would like to ask why you use such emotionally charged and extraordinarily discourteous language in your diatribe against atheists. I have noticed a fundamental change in the way that atheists are attacked. Previously only the more rabid of the religious literalists used this sort of language. Now, it appears to have spread across the board.

The religious apologists (you included) have adopted a poor literary style of polemics that take a cudgel with which to bash atheists in very personal ad hominem attacks, while glossing over and never logically addressing the points that are made in said atheists' published works. Words like 'zealots', 'rants', 'rowdy and brash', 'demented', 'impertinent', 'militant' and 'hysterical' seem to be used by religious apologists with more or less gay abandon.

You say that we have no understanding of religion. Tell me (in the words of an acquaintance of mine, Peter K): In any atheist/theist debate, have you ever once seen a theist who knew more about atheism than the atheist knew about theism?
I would venture to suggest: Not once, not ever.

The reason is that a lot of atheists arrive at the atheistic stance by questioning, researching, doubting and undergoing a personally tortured journey that Julia Sweeney calls 'Letting go of god'. Atheists of this ilk understand a lot more about religion than do their (still) religious counterparts. I am not one of those atheists; I have never been involved in any religion and I am in my 64th year. In the past couple of years, I have become interested in the history of religions and my religious friends tell me I know more about their religions than they do. I certainly don't know what it 'feels' like to be religious, but I am grateful to the people who have tried to help me understand this. I still don't understand except intellectually.

You say:
"There are no experiments and tests to explain love, empathy, longing, the agony and ecstasy of the heart, the wild and wonderful creativity of the brain, that thing that happens to you when a full moon appears above the sea and is reflected in it. Sorry, but knowing the science of why the moon shines is irrelevant to the experience. Faith is the light of the moon above and that light in the sea, reality and spirituality, both making you tremblingly conscious of forces vast and beyond words. Impertinent scientists cannot know what they speak of."

Neuroscience and biochemistry are both areas of study you would do well to read. I also suggest you read more of Dawkins – 'Unweaving the Rainbow' is a beautiful book that addresses the wonder that scientific understanding has added to the glorious feelings of natural awe that we all experience. I don't need a religion to make me weep and my pulse race at the beauty of mountains, trees, music, literature and the cosmos. And weep I do. I can be and have been utterly overcome by the universe in which I find myself. These feelings have nothing to do with religiosity and everything to do with my growing appreciation of how fortunate I am to be alive in such a wonderful place.

I do not know any impertinent scientists. I grew up in the company of scientists and each one was humbled in the face of the majesty of the natural world and his study of it. I am the beneficiary of their understandings. I am grateful for everything they showed me about their appreciation of the world.

You might also realise that not every atheist is a scientist. I am not. We are a many and varied bunch, just as you would find in any community of people. The common area of our community is that we do not believe in the supernatural. That is our only commonality.

You also say:
"Fundamentalist atheists want to replace old religions with their own."

It is a fundamental and wilfully ignorant mistake to refer to the atheistic stance as a religion. That is precisely what it isn't as I have tried to explain above. Atheists are rational secularists and would like people to approach their lives in that fashion. Atheists are most certainly not infected by the virus of faith. I find your misrepresentations of atheists and scientists quite alarming. I cannot see how you arrived at this gross misunderstanding.

You say that your having faith makes you humble and self-questioning. I see no evidence in this article of yours that you honestly question very much at all. And that is a pity. There is a whole world waiting outside the blinkered fantasy that is religion. And you will never know it. To me that is tragic beyond measure.

My sincere regrets
Veronica Guy

Cheers
V

364. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67319 by Veronique on September 3, 2007 at 3:51 am

Tea and scones appear be to unnecessary, Benway and Russell.

Just as well. In the last few months, I have applied less effort to the smickness of my home. AARRGGHH. There are papers everywhere denoting matters I am supposed to attend to. And I just want to retire forever. I am not good at saying 'no' - and go jump all of you who want to extend that within a different arena:-)

Our Sal will not visit us again, indeed after her visit, she declined to make a comment. Ah, so what?

Cheers
V

365. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67263 by Veronique on September 3, 2007 at 1:41 am

206. Comment #67255 by BAEOZ

She says she's not religious BAEOZ. I don't know that I can believe anything she says. If she visited this site (which she intimates that she has) then she has seen all these comments. Her comments to me appear to gainsay her stated irreligiosity.

Ah, projection!! Of course. Then she's lying about her irreligiosity, yes? I tend to think so. If she's trying to straddle that barbed-wire fence, she will come undone, as it were:-) Ouch!!

Cheers
V

366. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67253 by Veronique on September 3, 2007 at 1:17 am

OK - update time.

Here's Sal's second response. I included NB's observation in my email to her:

Dear Veronica,

I hope I wd never be personally discourteous to Professor Dawkins and I am sure he is quite able to take criticism - and a bit of humour - which is part of academic life. I have read the God Delusion which I liked less than his other books. His self aggrandisement is intellectual not personal – the largest number of references in the book are to his own work. And the points I raise are some of those raised by Cornwell's angel. I was transcribing them for 'him' (or 'her'). It is quite a normal reviewing practice.

I have already been sent the link, thank you, where it is clear that the word 'images' has another meaning for some of the contributors. Professor D must be amused to have started a movement with so many disciples to defend him. Good (or God?) for him!

Now, I have some urgent matters to deal with so please forgive me if I don't reply again. I can't of course speak for the Bishop of Carlisle, nor for anyone else in the Church of England, nor, indeed, for any other church or relgious organization....

Best, Salley

I find her use of language similar to that used by religites; disciples irritates me no end. But I can rise above this:-). I still do not believe she has read TGD - maybe indulged in a potted coffee table conversation with someone who had skipped through the table of contents in the bookstore. She has a strange view considering she states that she had nothing to do with religion as a youth. Hmmmm.

I also find it interesting that she says:

I have read the God Delusion which I liked less than his other books.

This a facile throw-away comment. I don't know about the rest of you but there is no way I could compare TGD with any other book RD has written. Yes, he has bound together a lot of what he has said in his previous books into TGD. However TGD is totally different from anything he has written. Oh, I didn't like it as much, merely indicates (to me) that she has not read it critically, if at all. I have come to the uncharitable conclusion that our Sal is full of it...

Maybe RD could email her. Ha, interesting thought. But then he would have to email the rest. I doubt if he would waste his time.

Silly Salley of the Gardens. Russell terrific limerick:-). All of you are more clever than I. And far more entertaining:-)
V

367. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #67202 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 4:24 pm

5. Comment #64347 by Duff

I know, but why couldn't they have all looked swiftly at each other and made a pact to not respond to such a silly question?

If all of them had given a considered, non-religious reply as 35. Comment #67197 by drbreakfast suggests, then the electorate would have no choice but to wear it.

It makes me think that they are all a bunch of ponces. No wonder the US gets a less than 40% voter turn out.

Cheers
V

368. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #67198 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 3:58 pm

I think I may start posting some of my brother's considered replies.

I sent him the link to Harris' article. This is his response:

The Sam Harris article is fascinating in its claim that the death of Jesus is just another example of human sacrifice to propitiate a God. It's something I hadn't thought of before. Unlike all the other examples he quotes however, this execution was not "explicitly religious." In fact, those who carried it out did not do as a sacrifice, but as a punishment.

It is the Christians who came afterwards who have reconstructed this event in a religious context, and it is their reconstruction that enables Harris to place his sacrificial interpretation upon it:

"Christianity amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others....

The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a "loving" God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history. Viewed in a modern context, it is an idea at once so depraved and fantastical that it is hard to know where to begin to criticize it."

Is the sacrificial interpretation plausible? Well, it could be. There is now good archaeological evidence to confirm that less than 200 years before, Carthaginian families carried out sacrifices of one of their children. They were descended from the Phoenicians, who still lived on what is now the Lebanese coast, and who may still have been doing this in the first century of the Christian era.

If the notion of offspring sacrifice was familiar to the early Christians, it could have led them to place a sacrificial interpretation on this outrage, with God being the one sacrificing His son. This interpretation reduces the executioners to the unwitting accomplices of a God they did not know, and may have seemed to the believers to make some sense out of the otherwise senseless loss of their spiritual guide. Indeed, it may have seemed the only way to make sense of it.

By the time Christians were tacking on the notion of a resurrection, this immediate explanation of sacrifice was presumably starting to wane. When you think about, the resurrection is incompatible with the idea of God making a sacrifice - again, something that hasn't occurred to me before. Perhaps He was just pretending to give his only begotten son, only to take him back again. Or perhaps Christian theology is such a disorganised mish-mash that it really doesn't matter.

Of course, if it was God making the sacrifice, this doesn't leave much room for Harris's view of the event as the propitiation of a God. There, I think, he has drawn his long bow a little too far.

I guess, my brother (whose name is Richard), could easily have added Discuss.

Cheers
V

369. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67193 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Good Morning all.

I have replied to Salley's email linking this thread and inviting her over:-).

We'll see. Not sure what to think. Her response may well have been a one-off, never to be repeated. On the other hand ...

NB

Tch. These atheists. No morals.

I know, I know:-) I have been chastised before. No excuse. Damn good read, though.

Hilarious thread this one.

Cheers
V

370. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67140 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 6:34 am

Wow: just checked my email. Here's Sal's reply: Enjoy. She couldn't get my surname right. RD should be honoured!!

Dear Veronica Gay,

The language employed by Dawkins and his followers is often discourteous and polemical and your letter rather bears this out.

I am not a Christian; nor was I brought up as one, nor, in fact, in any religion. And I have read Dawkins – and admire some of his earlier books. And I, too, read 'holy' books, but with an attempt to read them in the cultural frame in which they were composed. As John Stuart Mill points out, it is a common error to presume because something is not provable that it therefore does not exist. Some things are not susceptible to proof or disproof. Disproof is in fact the accepted scientific method.

My comparison with education and psychiatry stands. Both have been badly applied – even wickedly applied - but that does not make them in themselves itself bad or a springboard for coercive practises. And angels are time honoured images used by artists and writers over the centuries to communicate subtle and formless states. There is nothing irrational about that.

Best Regards,

Salley Vickers

371. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67139 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 6:29 am

I thought I'd check the comments before I toddle off to bed with Victor Stenger, of whom I am becoming fond.

How delightful!! It has been a ruddy good laugh. You are a great bunch. Richard Morgan, that avatar is wild. I have never seen such a pissed off cat in my whole life!!

Michael, I took the trouble to email our Sal with the unmangled version of my post. I doubt that I will hear from her:-).

That reminds me, I have never heard back from the Bish who cleverly worked out the reasons for the floods in the north of England. I did send him Satanburiedfossils' list of weather related bible quotes to help the Bish develop a curriculum for Intelligent Weather. Maybe he's still busy.

Goodnight you lot:-)
V

372. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67118 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 2:41 am

This is posted on Vickers' web site. Doesn't say much about the standard of qualifications these days, does it?

Salley Vickers has worked as a university teacher of literature, specialising in Shakespeare, and taught in adult education where she specialised in the literature of the ancient world. She is a trained analytical psychologist and lectures widely on the connections between literature, psychology and religion. Besides writing her third novel, she is working on a book which tells the story of the Book of Common Prayer.

She lives and works in London and Bath and her first name, Salley (about which she is often asked, and which can cause problems on computer searches for her books), is spelled with an 'e' because it is the Irish for 'willow' (from the Latin: salix, salicis) as in the W.B.Yeats poem, 'Down by the salley gardens'.

Hahahaha
V

373. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #67114 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 2:27 am

dlitt

I have just emailed Methodist Ladies College in Perth asking that they pass my message on to Kylie Sturgess. I hope she will agree to meet with me.

The transcript on RN's site was good. She sounds like a very together young woman. I look forward to meeting her, if she has the time.

Hopefully something can be set up in time for the 2008 academic year. I certainly hope so.

Cheers and thanks
V

374. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #67111 by Veronique on September 2, 2007 at 2:01 am

102. Comment #67108 by dlitt

Thank you very much. I am going to Perth in November. I will make a time and catch up with her. I am sure she will be helpful. I read the link you posted; will listen to the RN broadcast.

My teaching qualifications are way out of date and, in any case, I have retired. I would hope an off-campus site could be set-up with credits earned. I would have to find some qualified people to participate. Maybe from Southern Cross Uni. It all bears doing some research.

As is the case with most retired people, I will probably fill my time up so that I am busier than when I was earning a quid:-).

Another thanks
V

375. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66912 by Veronique on September 1, 2007 at 1:32 am

29. Comment #66901 by Tyrant007

I haven't been able to access any of the comments on TimesOnLine. What do you refresh? All I get is 'Have your say', not a list of already made comments. Tell me, I am eager to learn!!

Cheers
V

376. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66904 by Veronique on September 1, 2007 at 1:09 am

Oh fuck, can someone here please tell me what Pythagorus is talking about? Is he being satirical or ridiculous?

I don't understand what he is posting. Is he another twit or not?

More wine
V

377. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66898 by Veronique on September 1, 2007 at 12:44 am

Wow, you guys are quick!! I am impressed. I am only an accountant and a two finger typist.

Tyrant I had only just posted that and there you are. Golly!!

My best:-)
V

378. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66891 by Veronique on September 1, 2007 at 12:26 am

OK Benway and RD. I may be somewhat less than rational but this is what I posted onto the TimesOnLine site (took three posts to get it all up there).

RD I don't think the moderators check for censorship, they just have a process to go through:-). I am so glad this site is un-moderated. I say some silly things but, at least, I am able to say them:-) Thank you and Josh immensely. Please don't be too cross with my post to silly Salley.

So Salley, you think Dawkins is self-aggrandising eh? Just where did you pick that up from? Certainly not from the book I read. Have you actually read The God Delusion? I started reading Dawkins in the early '80s. His name and views are not new to me. You sound as though you are the first (together with Cornwell) to write scathingly of Dawkins.

I thought you were reviewing Cornwell's book. Seems not. Instead you write a cheap piece that takes pot shots at Dawkins. I can tell you he has far more stamina that you have my little dear. He will still be around when you have run out of steam and words.

Call yourself a reviewer? You are not even a reviewer's bootlace. Since my interest in religion was piqued last year, I have learnt a lot. My religious friends tell me I now know more about their holy book than they do.

"…nailing Dawkins's first sleight of hand which, as loads of people have now pointed out, dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism."

Wrong and cowardly. Dawkins points to the fact that every religion is delusional because each one is based on unevidenced superstition and none of them has produced any evidence for any of their tenets. He thesis is that 'moderate religion' acts as a springboard for religious fanaticism. Be honest Salley. I hate to see people who write publicly lying through their teeth in an attempt to substantiate their own particular polemic.

"Does it follow that I should not have attended primary school? Is psychiatry a bad thing because schizophrenics were once made to take bromide?"

Don't be so precious and ridiculous.

"Next the seraph gently takes Dawkins to task for his breezy disregard for – some might say ignorance of – serious theology."

He wasn't writing a serious theological book. As I intimated above, most believers know virtually nothing about theology; they just believe because they were indoctrinated as children. Pretty much like you, I would guess.

"Hence it especially behoves the professional spreader of ideas to watch his or her language."

Pity that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't watch their language and neither did Paul who started the whole thing some forty years after no one had noticed that Jesus lived and died.

"They "know" they are right – that least scientific of attitudes since it precludes changes of heart or openness of mind"

Wrong again. If you were to come up with proper, testable evidence for the existence of your sky god and his other personas, we would welcome it. All we don't do is keep such an open mind that our brains fall out. We operate on probabilities and the probability of your sky god existing is very, very small indeed.

Angelic Ripostes? Angels? You have to be taking the mickey. If not, then I fear for both your and Cornwell's sanity. See, I can cherry-pick as well. And you 'review' leaves you so open to cherry-picking.
V

379. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66876 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Isn't she supposed to be reviewing Cornwell's book? Why then have a vitriolic go at Dawkins.

Oh, Benway. I doubt that I have read as much as you have, but I haven't got the stomach for this continued onslaught. If you can find a way of commissioning a tasty gift, I'll join with you. Poor RD.

I feel as though I should add a comment to TimesOnLine, but sigh, I don't think I can drag up the energy.

How RD does it, I'll never know.

On the other hand I have just finished watching Flemming's The God who wasn't there and frightened myself all over again at the irrationality that is out there. I never wanted to watch Gibson's The Passion of the Christ but had to suffer through the excerpts that Flemming put into his movie. Frightened the shit out of me. Gratuitous violence, blood and guts. It has grossed $330M so far (2005) and according to Flemming is the jesus movie of choice amongst Christians. Horrifying.

Sam Harris is right when he says that humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice and they haven't given it up yet. And it seems always to be associated with superstitious religious belief.

Back to silly Salley. Maybe I ought to make a comment after all.

Cheers
V

380. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66824 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Tell me please, this is a spoof, isn't it? This can't possibly be true, can it? I dooon't believe it!! These are grown-up people, aren't they?

I have never heard such total rubbish!! I am gobsmacked. And they keep on wanting 'respect' from the rest of us. Good grief!! How the hell can anyone respect a belief that requires chickens to be waved over believers' heads. This is utterly bonkers.

It sounds like Chicken Noodle Soup where the manufacturers are (apocryphally) reputed to fly the chicken over the saucepan rather than add it to the stock. Now I know why the Jews give CNS to sick people as nourishment.

I spat my tea out!! I'll have to stop typing and do something practical before I go round the twist.

Shit, they are loopy. What did they do with their brains?
V

381. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66758 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 8:26 am

86. Comment #66713 by Prufrock

What a superb post. Thank you so much for a well considered reply. I spent my parenting years teaching Socratic questioning to my two boys. I am immensely proud of them. Not because of how I tried to teach them, but because they were the way they were, regardless of my pushing, pushing, pushing. I look at them now (in their late 30s and early 40s) and think that they have harnessed their own critical faculties and have come out on the side of reason, compassion, and tolerance and they give no quarter to stupidity. Neither of them allows idiocy to pass them without comment. They are far more tolerant than I and, at the same time more critical than I. My younger son is less tolerant than his older brother, but that is his towy nature. Both of them are more tolerant than I am. I am the bitch in their eyes; but they love me.

I am extraordinarily fortunate to have two sons who have no problem taking me to task when I make intemperate statements. They give me shit when I deserve it. And so they should. They know me better than anyone else does and they don't hit the pause button. I am grateful for their critical input. I am pleased that the baby boomer parents (me) appear to have a wonderful, critical relationship with their children; where anything can be said and argued. I feel treasured with my kids. I think there has been a shift in parental/children relationships.

I didn't have that facility with my parents (well, sort of with my pater, but well qualified). I have a wish list that desires that everyone question everything regardless of how he is reared. I think I am an idealist. And that is not being realistic. But I think that reality checks are so important in this current zeitgeist (weasel word), and I have such a problem listening to children who have adopted the appalling currently popular me-first and fuck the rest of you mentality.

Prufrock I have gathered the critical thinking series from cie and I want to institute a forum that ties into the state school curriculum. I will certainly update you with the results of my efforts.

Thank you so much mate, you make me feel as though I am not just pissing in the wind. And sometimes I do feel like that.

smiles, my older son hated losing at chess and taught himself to be a strategist. Good on him!!

Don't apologise for rambling!! I thoroughly enjoyed your comment:-)

Thank you, all of you for trying to relieve my despair at the schooling of our kids that leaves them unable to cope with the world that confronts them. I love you all.

And thank you dear Douglas Adams for the Long Dark tea-time of the Soul.

My best to you all
V

382. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66705 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 3:35 am

Ole Thank you dear, I have ordered the series from the Critical Thinking site.

Thank you Elephant. There is so much to be done.

Talk to you both later. The cats are screaming to be fed:-)

Love
V

383. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66703 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 3:26 am

78. Comment #66699 by Ole

Thank you so much!! I will check it out. I need these pointers.

V - from Down Under:-).

384. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66696 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 3:02 am

Ah Prufrock give me some pointers. Don't just reiterate what I am saying. Help me. I fear that the wank that is being taught leaves our kids with nothing of value on which to base their lives.

I hear this shit when I walk through my town and hear what these kids are talking about. It frightens the shit out of me. There seems to be no introspection. Just what band is de rigueur; what drug is available; what doof to go to. How to get out of it.

I despair. I really do. Is this what we have come to? I will be devastated if this is true!! Am I an idealist? Maybe. Sob.

I need help from everyone on this site who can help my desire to at least offer some alternative.

My best
V

385. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66694 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 2:39 am

81. Comment #66690 by pewkatchoo

Thanks sweetheart, Couldn't possibly have extracted that meaning:-). I will attempt to remember it. I won't hold my breath (especially while imbibing the good red!!)

What do you mean NORWICH? Isn't it a place? Aren't place names' origins embedded in the arcane? Britain is an old place with lots of names floating around. Like Gloucester; I intend coming over to the UK to meet my current extended family. What's with Norwich?

I charge my glass:-).
V

386. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66688 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 1:09 am

72. Comment #66653 by Dr Benway

You are absolutely right. This is why I want to host a critical thinking forum for the high schoolers in my district. Critical thinking is not a subject (let alone a core subject) in our school curricula anywhere in Australia. I think it is imperative to introduce an off site forum where kids can earn educational credits that are attached to the official curriculum credits earned within their particular school's educational agenda.

I am not sure how to approach this within a curriculum-based agenda. If anyone has any ideas, I would welcome them. I understand that the ruling parties do not want a smart electorate, but I think this subversive activity is essential for our kids and for our future.

Help
V

387. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66685 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 12:46 am

53. Comment #66503 by coretemprising

What's SWAK????? Of course I am a woman, albeit an old one:-). The congrats should really go to my son and his wife who actually produced the babe. My son (Josh) told me that they will have another and then stop. He said that he remembers my talking about the intolerable human burden on our planet and that I said 'reproduce yourself and your mate and then stop'. It was true 35 odd years ago. Now we live much longer and we are accosted on both sides. Increased birth rates and increased longevity (both as a result of medical technology), so I have some problem now with my earlier stance.

But you can't really tell people not to have babies, when the societal imperative is that you aren't 'potentialised' until you reproduce. Good grief, how many of us actually understand that our numbers contribute to the stressors of our planet? Bush doesn't. Howard and his Treasurer don't. Blair didn't. These guys are political leaders! How come they are all so blinkered? I don't understand it at all.

To me, it's as plain as the nose on my face! More people, more habitat destruction. Jared Diamond says it straight up. Arthur Koestler said it straight up some 40 years ago. Anyone who thinks about it has said it straight up. Why doesn't anyone listen?

AAARRRGGGHHH. Time to drink that glass of wine:-).
V

388. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66683 by Veronique on August 31, 2007 at 12:26 am

Russell hahaha. I would love to have your facility with limerick creation. Please never stop!! Stay frivolous. It's a counterweight to your seriousness and I am entranced:-).

BAEOZ, you're quick off the mark:-). It's now 5pm and the bottle has been uncorked. Well, in these days of having not much in the way of corkwood left, I should say I have unscrewed the bottle top. It's a yellow tail shiraz. Yum.

Is it my imagination or are we all verging on being pisspots? I have an excuse – I am old. You have an excuse – you are young. What about those in between? Do you think they are P plate pisspots? Hmmmm.

Thanks Hobbit for explaining our use of the word 'pissed'. And I was!! So was my son when he phoned me from Perth:-). Ah, boys will be boys. Ain't it grand!!

You may see on another thread that I have cautiously withdrawn my compassion for MT. I am beginning to think that she was a disturbed and possibly psychotic person. That she flagellated herself (I understand Catholics in doubt do this) using those poor children as her whip. There's a word for this type of flagellation and I can't think what it is, at the minute. But I know it goes with constant mea culpas. What a religion!! How awful; what wasted lives!! What enormous distress. No wonder I loathe Roman Catholicism and its doctrinal edicts. It's adherents see it as life-confirming. I see them as utterly life-destroying.

My intense pleasure in this site
V

389. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66673 by Veronique on August 30, 2007 at 10:10 pm

75. Comment #66669 by Hobbit

You forgot to add doctors as well. Some doctors are fine about abortion and others aren't. And yes, I agree, her choice has nothing to do with anyone except herself.

Shuggy - I just noticed you made all the sixes! Nothing to do with infanticide and Aborigines. They practised a clever method of contraception, given they didn't have much else except the herbs around the place. They trod pretty lightly on the ground. I wish we could do the same. It's so much more important now.

Cheers
V

I am sober now and have just celebrated with several cups of coffee:-)

390. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66670 by Veronique on August 30, 2007 at 9:54 pm

52. Comment #65757 by Linda

I have read the article. Thank you for the link.

It sounds as though MT was using those little kiddies as her self-flagellating whip, because she had doubts. How awful. I have to say that having read so much more about this woman now, I am about to take back all that compassion I posted on a different thread. I am beginning to think she was a very disturbed and demented person. I guess I could feel compassion for her except for her treatment of the cildren. Can't forgive that one.

I haven't read Hitch's book, because I was never interested in MT. She sounded pretty wonky to me whenever she was mentioned in the media. Now I understand why. Utter hypocrisy. She knew it and accepted accolades and dosh from dodgy sources. And where did the money go? If there were that many millions in US bank accounts, why didn't she build proper shelters and fit them out for those children? Someone suggested the money ended up in the Vatican. If so, that's disgusting.

Wow Logicel what a totally different story. Abbe Pierre was a real person. Nothing holier-than-thou about him. Thanks for letting us know about him. And thanks for further insights into your earlier life. No wonder you left as soon as you could:-).

Nice one
V

391. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66616 by Veronique on August 30, 2007 at 3:45 pm

60. Comment #66596 by 82abhilash

I am so sorry. It wasn't an emotional outburst:-). Strongly worded, I agree. And it wasn't meant as a diatribe against you, honestly. I only get frenzied about the Flea and Biz, and that's only sometimes. Then I am very intemperate:-).

My feelings about women's reproductive rights are pretty strong. If those rights were freely granted by societies with no strings attached and no necessity to feel guilt, I would be extremely pleased. And we possibly wouldn't have 6.5 billion people on this poor, groaning planet. I am glad that my views do not contradict your own.

Dream on V, dream on.

Cheers 82
V

392. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66604 by Veronique on August 30, 2007 at 3:15 pm

59. Comment #66586 by Richard Morgan

Good Morning Richard:-).

The problem is, I'm so frightened of silly people harming a cause that is so vitally important to me, that I end up, well, harming the cause, in reaction

I understand exactly what you mean. I have just been going through the comments posted to Harris' article in OnFaith. 275 of them (only two of them are mine)!! You should see some of the unctuous comments that laud Harris to the skies. Very embarrassing!! My reaction to some of those comments was to cringe and gulp down my Quetz tea blend:-).

I didn't count the ones that I consider do the cause of reason and rationality quite a bit of harm, but there are lots. And, of course, they attract comments back from the religites that take them to task (quite rightly).

We are pretty mild by comparison on this site. Of course, we talk to each other here. So much freedom; this is a wonderful site. When we talk outside on something like OnFaith's board, we conduct ourselves with much more considered decorum because we have an agenda to tease reason and rationality out of the religites' posts.

We are OK here, mate. You should check out some of OnFaith's posts!!!

Settle, dear man, settle:-). We are all in this for the long haul and there are lots of doozies out there. This site is more like 'home'.
Cheers
V

Edit This one is said in Oz quite a lot - one sandwich short of a picnic. Hahaha

393. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66492 by Veronique on August 30, 2007 at 6:04 am

Ian, hello mate.

I am somewhat pissed so I won't say much. This evening my son helped deliver his wife of a child. A boy, 5lbs 3 oz. What a delight for him and for an exhausted her. Would I gainsay that? Not at all.

I am a grandmother. Yeah!! The child grew normally within his mother. My bitch has a different bent and it's valid.

Goodnight
V

394. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66480 by Veronique on August 30, 2007 at 5:28 am

42. Comment #66469 by Peacebeuponme

Sure. I wouldn't deny that. The point is that our aborigines DID understand how to limit population growth and practiced a methodology that eludes us today. I suppose that what I am saying is that their 'world view' (now) was more cognisant of a population limit than the currently fractured view that people need to potentialise themselves by producing progeny in a world that can no longer accept such a level of population growth,

Yes, I have read Guns, Germs and Steel. I have also read Collapse, which is even more interesting. Reading Jared Diamond makes me say out loud, Yes, yes, yes. He is one very smart fellow, with well-expounded theses. But please don't discount the aborigines' understanding of population limiting and their methodology. It was part of that equation.

We can't even get it together NOW when its importance is paramount. And we have the revolting Roman Catholic hierarchy, too dim to understand that its stupid ideology (as interpreted by them) will disadvantage all of us, god rot them.

My best to you. i am glad that you are firmly in my? not just my camp. Bless you!
V

395. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66450 by Veronique on August 30, 2007 at 2:54 am

32. Comment #66424 by Richard Morgan

I am not confused by your comments. I have to say that in case you start doubting the clarity of your posts. It's the written language again!! YYAARRGGHH. It's inevitable, my dear. Even the spoken language (in situ) has traps for unwary players.

It's a burden we have to bear. I get very pissed off when my words are (mis) translated through someone's mindset and come out the other end totally different from my exposition. Like you (and everyone else) I then think that I wasn't clear enough. I assume that I had worded my argument slothfully and no one understood my argument. Not necessarily true!! Someone else's brain had interpreted my words through his own mental filter. Bugger language!! Always has been and always will be a communication problem (hahahaha – sorry, joke).

I think they say: Dona worry, she's a good. No problemo. Language is as language does.

You're fine, mate, at least in my book.
V

396. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66404 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Dear Richard Morgan you are such a lovely (albeit towy), man. Let be, my dear.

You know, as well as I, that the written language can convey interpretative dissonance. No one is really fawning over Harris. Indeed, I find his writing style suits me admirably. So does RD's style. So does Dennett's. And I am, at the present, reading Stenger. I find his style quite delightful. Oooh, I like Hitchens as well.

You know, I couldn't understand the screaming of adolescents at the advent of The Beatles on our shores in June 1964. I was flummoxed. However, I did go on to a delighted appreciation of their music (took a couple of years after that time). I don't scream at 'stars'. I do understand, however, a vocal admiration with (possibly) intemperate language that favours one public figure over another (or many others).

We are old, Father William, let us not be censorious:-).

My best to you
V

397. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66388 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 11:00 pm

25. Comment #66383 by 82abhilash

By its very nature it is an unpleasant decision to make, at least. While I am sure no one here would advocate a blanket ban on abortion, some check and balance system would be a good idea to ensure that unwanted pregnancies are prevented rather than terminated

Unpleasant eh? Try telling that to a woman who, because of religious interference and being part of a male-dominated society, isn't able to insist on condom usage or, indeed on no sex. Her reaction is more likely: 'Oh no, not again!!' She has had to have 5,6,7 or more babies that she can't look after or who are going to die of AIDS/HIV or simply malnutrition. The ability to seek a safe abortion is a blessing. Unpleasant doesn't even enter into the equation.

Trust me, I am a compassionate woman and am not blinded by any airy fairy fucking concepts of what other people think women go through. I am sick of this pretend pandering to PC mouthings. I have been through this BS myself and I am utterly unimpressed with the sycophantic PC ramblings of white dominant peoples. Sorry, you got it in the throat. I am not having a go at you per se, just at the way you use words without thinking of what they actually convey.

Last year, according to the UN, 67,000 women died as a result of having to seek back-yard abortions that induced septicaemia or being forced to have babies that they had no possibility of bringing to full term. This figure also includes women who desperately utilised age-old birth control measures (that include knitting needles and gin baths) that didn't work and ultimately contributed to their deaths.

Of course we would all like to see preventive measures available to ALL women, but that just doesn't happen. The Mother Grundys and religites see to that, god rot them!

In some of our Aboriginal communities (in the past), the men took it upon themselves to introduce a hole into their penises so that the sperm would flow out of the introduced hole rather than into the women's vaginas. They were hunters and gatherers and couldn't afford large populations while travelling in this very bare land. The women had other means to induce abortions. By and large these methods worked. They certainly didn't overburden this country with a burgeoning population. They contained themselves to the environment they had lived in for between 40,000 to 60,000 years (no one knows exactly when they arrived here over the land bridge).

Unlike us who commandeered this land and disenfranchised (ie killed) them and continue to do so despite the bleatings of our control freak politicians. Now we have whites seducing young aboriginal children with petrol sniffing and alcohol in order to sexually abuse these black CHILDREN – some under the age of 2. Are you not outraged? Of course you are.

Now they have been 'citified', they have lost a lot of their own cultural imperatives (and we whites have given them a terrific alternative culture to aspire to!! Not!!) to the detriment of their continued cultures. Their birth numbers are on the rise (as are their death numbers) and no one gives a damn.

So don't try to tell me that a decision to abort is being unpleasant. The decision is reached because it is necessary. That's it. Lock, stock and barrel. Women who bleat about how traumatised they were reaching such a decision have been sucked into the prevailing PC culture that dictates 'you must have been traumatised'. Answer: 'Oh yes, you will never know how much soul-searching I went through.' All bollocks!!

This one, you realise, grabs my passion:-).
Cheers
V

398. A Daddy Longlegs Tells the Story of the Continents' Big Shifts

Comment #66384 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 10:13 pm

4. Comment #66225 by BigJohn

Nice one John!! LOL

Terrific bit of sleuthing on the part of this biogeographical team. The gaps keep narrowing. Isn't it a treat?

Cheers
V

399. Another view

Comment #66380 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Because I am essentially lazy and it is mid afternoon, warm and seductive:-), this is an extract from Wikipedia:

A major study funded by the NIH in the United States failed to find any evidence that Hypericum extract of St John's wort was effective in treating moderate to severe cases of major depression (Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group, 2002). This study involved 340 patients, diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder based on DSM-IV criteria and assessed using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores. The trial was a multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, comparing one preparation of St John's wort (Li 160) to the antidepressant sertraline, and to placebo. No statisticallly significant effect was garnered from Li 160. Sertraline was also no better than placebo in this study, based on the primary outcome measure (the HAM-D).

Valerian has not been subject to tests like the one above (at least as recorded in Wiki).

Melatonin and 5-HTP are produced inside our bodies. Some people will more production, some less. Like a lot of other amino acids that we produce, secrete and otherwise live with.

The big problem with these products, be they naturally derived or synthesised, is that they are sold as 'cure-alls' with no regulation. They are prescribed by people under no regulation and with somewhat spurious training.

Their counterparts, having been rigorously tested and synthesised from the active ingredients of plants, are prescribed under a regulated system. All the research is available and has undergone scientific review.

The big pharmas spend massive amounts of money searching the plant world for potential curative ingredients. South America is a good search area for them. The indigenous communities have a vast knowledge of their plant environment and have been using all manner of plants as curatives for centuries. These plants are researched by the pharmas to extract active ingredients. Yes it costs a fortune. Yes it may take up to 20 years for proper research to be conducted on their 'finds'. Yes they have to undergo rigorous testing. I find that a good thing.

For quasi-medicos to prescribe dried plants, tinctures, oils etc to an unsuspecting public who, for some reason, decides that these quasi-medicos are actually trained in anything that approaches proper medical pharmacology, is nothing short of breathtaking.

I am not saying here, that modern medicine has all the answers. It doesn't. But it regulates itself with proper research, alternative medicine doesn't. It uses medication that contains numerous amounts of different ingredients without studies on the effects of any number of those numerous other ingredients contained within the dried herb etc.

Valerian will help you sleep? It doesn't for me. Never bothered with St. John's Wort; I am not a depressive. I don't need SSRIs so I don't take them.
My concern is that the ordinary public with no knowledge of medical pharmacology are treating these quasi-practitioners as though they are highly trained and knowledgeable medicos. They aren't. They are quacks.

Cheers
V

400. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66376 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 9:01 pm

I wasn't going to either read the article or comment on this. It seemed so ho hum. But I clicked and read the Hitch. My eye was caught by this:

that it is the inevitable result of a dogma that asks people to believe impossible things and then makes them feel abject and guilty when their innate reason rebels

Beautifully put!!

At the risk of upsetting those on this thread that think that abortion has hijacked the on- topic comments, this happens all the time. Commenting is an organic process that touches the nerves of people and comments become fractured. All very normal, I would have thought.

I can't, for the life of me, see this as a problem. Skim over the comments you don't want to read and post your own comment that may or may not have anything to do with other posters or the article being commented on.

I, like everyone here, have been caught up in commenting on comments. I also comment on the article that spawned the comments. I also spit the dummy at the religites who post here. I try to reason with them, then spit the dummy:-).

We are an eclectic group of people who like to have our own say. So be it. I enjoy this and obviously so do others. This site is terrific in that no moderator edits the comments. It's a free-for-all. Wonderful!!

Right – having got that out of the way, I want to comment on abortion (hahaha):-).

I want to know why these words and phrases have been used in relation to abortion:

Horrible as abortion is
Termination … to be appalling
Abortion as an abomination
Abortion is an ugly thing
Any logical thinking person must be against abortion
Ugly reality

They sound like words from a long buried mantra. At best it's the apologist's stance. What for, I would like to know.

It's called a surgical procedure. See, no loaded words there. Some women handle it well, others (and I would suspect they have feelings of inculcated guilt) not so well.

It's the words and phrases that are listed above, that keep this decision that women should be entirely free to make for themselves, clouded unnecessarily in more emotion than is needed.

Get over it, you lot. Shuggy, yoyo, BAEOZ, Duff, Mantaray, LeeLeeOne, The Author and others see the issue far more clearly. The rest of you (and Hitch) need to use Jiff on the windows of your minds.

Back to MT. Poor bloody woman. Hitch is more understanding in this article, less vituperative. I even find myself doing a bit more charitable thinking about her. I cannot imagine living a life wracked by such fundamental doubt while desperately trying to a beacon of internal light to sustain me.

Poor, deluded, unhappy woman. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. Her damned mentors and spiritual advisers aren't even ashamed of themselves. Then to foist sainthood on her memory so that others, in the same boat, will use her memory to try to convince themselves that they can sustain a belief in the unbelievable is worse than criminal.

RIP, MT.

V