Comments by Paula Kirby

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?

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.

353. 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!"

354. 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!

355. 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.

356. 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.

357. 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.

358. 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.

359. 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.

360. 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 ...."

361. 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!

362. 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.

363. 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.

364. 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.

365. 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!

366. 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.

367. 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.

368. 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?

369. 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?

370. 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.

371. 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.

372. 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.

373. 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! :-)

374. 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!

375. 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.

376. 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.

377. 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.

378. 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.

379. 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.

380. 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)

381. 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.

382. Fleabytes

Comment #137014 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 6:26 am

Steve Zara: Many truths can be demonstrated with arguments based just on words and ideas. The infinitude of primes, for example. The fact that there are higher infinities.

OK, I accept that. Though I'm not sure there's a qualitative similarity in concepts such as prime numbers, and a concept such as god. Prime numbers can be demonstrated at lower levels in ways that god cannot at ANY level. I'm well outside my sphere of knowledge, experience and comfort with all this, though, so I think I'll just withdraw quietly and watch the philosophers from the sidelines for a bit!

383. Fleabytes

Comment #137007 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 6:04 am

MPhil: Actually, if they were to demonstrate that concepts and theories we do use (premises we actually have) do necessarily require a god, then that would mean that for all we know they must reflect reality.

I'm going to get out of my depth here very quickly, MPhil. Please bear with me! I would argue that the premise of theology is precisely what it is trying to demonstrate - i.e. that God exists - and that it is therefore inherently flawed. None of the theological disputation makes any sense to me other than in the context of explaining some characteristic of a god whose existence is taken for granted.

Besides, and this may well be my lack of philosophical knowledge speaking, I just can't see why I would be convinced by an argument based on words and ideas, when what is being proposed in those words and ideas is not discernible in the world around me. Maybe my mind is just too prosaic.

384. Fleabytes

Comment #137000 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 5:37 am

Steve Zara: I can see a possible issue here. It is that theologists might claim that they can demonstrate the existence of God using theological arguments (I don't know if this is still the case), so they may honestly believe that we should discuss on their terms.

Yes, I can see that they may well believe it. I just don't see how that belief can be justified. After all, just because we can imagine something, doesn't mean it therefore exists. Just because we can philosophise our way to deep and complex theoretical explanations of why a god would be required, doesn't for one moment mean that the theory must reflect reality.

So much theo-illogical endeavour is about creating explanations for the god they've already decided to believe in. Weird and wonderful explanations of the Trinity, for example, are not REMOTELY required in order to understand the world as we see it around us; they are ONLY required if you feel the need to justify the religious view that the bible is essentially truthful in its claims about God. It's all back to front and upside down. Like building a house and starting with the roof.

385. Fleabytes

Comment #136995 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 5:27 am

Wendy M: Paula - thank you for writing this piece. As a recent ex-Christian myself, I appreciate your honesty and enjoyed reading your views.

Clearthinker, when I first read Paula's review, I decided to read your book. I did not abandon my faith lightly, and I wanted to read your own words instead of relying on a review. But having observed your spiteful word games on this thread, I won't be bothering. I would find it hard to honestly evaluate your arguments in light of the character you have shown here.

Thank you for this, Wendy, and welcome to the website. "Spiteful word games" sums up David's behaviour here perfectly - not just on this thread, but on every thread I've ever seen him post on.

It seems a strange approach in someone who is committed to convincing us of the loving kindness of his god, and who wants us to believe that the world would be a kinder, better place if we all believed in that god. He has written that one of the reasons he believes in God is that he is overwhelmingly drawn to the personality of Jesus, so he would appear to understand the importance of personality when it comes to putting a message across. Yet who could look at David, as revealed in his posts on this website, and truly believe that a perfect, all-loving deity had been at work in his life? His behaviour is utterly at odds with his message - but sadly he just doesn't seem able to see it.

386. Fleabytes

Comment #136991 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 5:13 am

Quetz: By Jesus Christ of course. The Universe revolves around him, don'tcha know.

Oh again. So much for our free will!

387. Fleabytes

Comment #136987 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 5:07 am

Dawkins was forced to unban me

Oh. By whom, I wonder?

388. Fleabytes

Comment #136912 by Paula Kirby on March 2, 2008 at 2:56 am

MPhil: Btw, Paula if you should happen to read this - I would really like to hear your opinion on my long post on page 50

I thought it was fascinating stuff, MPhil. It's great to see that we have people on this site who can tackle these issues on the theologians' own terms, and I've followed the discussion that's sprung from your post with great interest.

Speaking for myself, though, I'm afraid I've never really "got" philosophy - there's something about it that seems to require more patience than I possess or even aspire to possess; but I readily concede that this is my failing, not philosophy's.

My instincts are with those who have suggested that we risk letting the theologians off the hook by agreeing to debate them on their terms. As I've said before, it seems to me that it's only reasonable to insist that they establish beyond doubt the existence of a god AT ALL, before spending time arguing about his preferences, his abilities, his limitations, his use of metaphor, his eye colour or his opinion of Marmite.

To me the key point is that, whilst it would admittedly be impossible to disprove a non-interventionist, deist god who simply lit the blue touch-paper at the beginning of the universe and has been standing well back ever since, this is not the god that the theists believe in. They believe in a god with specific characteristics: a god who regularly intervenes in his creation; a god who has a loving purpose for each of us; a god who confers free will; a god who drops £80 into preachers' laps just in time to save them from being prosecuted for writing cheques without the funds to cover them; a god who is loving and powerful; a god who hates to see our suffering; a god who has been known to raise people from the dead; a god who still performs miracles today; a god who answers prayer; a god who confers eternal life. And the moment you start attributing characteristics to an otherwise unknowable god, hey presto! it becomes possible to test for them, and to test alternative explanations for them, and consequently to reach rational, evidence-based conclusions on the likelihood of that god's existence.

The church depends on people not noticing this. Hence its emphasis on the importance of theological debate, and its dependence on strange concepts such as omnipotence, the Trinity, atonement, sin, even faith itself. Religion cannot survive without mystery, and it knows it. It therefore has a vested interest in creating the illusion of that mystery. And this is where, to my mind, theological debate comes in. Theology's job is to coat reality in mystery. And our job, as I see it, is to strip it off again!

Having said all that, MPhil, I'm perfectly aware that, since theologians DO in fact argue in these terms, we need to be able to take them on in the same terms, whether I like it or not. And you (and others here too) have shown yourself more than up to the task, thank goodness.

389. Fleabytes

Comment #136636 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm

2471. Comment #136628 by GOD HIMSELF on March 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I APOLOGISE FOR THE ASININE IDIOCY OF MY FAN CLUB

Have you seen the message you get if you click on GOD HIMSELF's user name? !!!!

390. Fleabytes

Comment #136630 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Hello: Purpose? What's that?

That's my question to you. Why are you posting on this site? With what goal in mind? You are not an atheist, you clearly disapprove of atheists, you are not putting the case for Christianity, you are not engaging in any discussion, you are not answering our questions, you won't even state what you believe and why you believe it, and you have made it clear that you think this website is a waste of time and is olfactorily offensive to you.

So why post here? What exactly are you hoping to achieve?

391. Fleabytes

Comment #136620 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Hello: But you did feel in the first place that you needed to!

Hardly. I simply chose to answer your question, since it conveyed the apparent assumption that the answer must be that Christians outnumbered atheists in working with the homeless. From my experience, that is only true where the Christian organisers exclude atheists for fear they'll thump the very people they're there to help!

How do you account for the fact that I made the decision to stop working with the homeless whilst I was still a Christian?

You are the one who seems to think that the question about soup runs somehow strengthens the argument for the truth of your beliefs. Why?

392. Fleabytes

Comment #136611 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Hello: No, Paula, you have been there. you know what we are talking about. You have made the decision to walk away. You have decided that it did not satisfy your desires, nor fulfill your longings.

Thank you for articulating so clearly that your belief is based on wishful thinking. It satisfies your desires and fulfils your longings. Sweet. But how does that make it true?

What is your purpose in posting on this site, by the way?

393. Fleabytes

Comment #136605 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Hello: and what stops you from organising your own?

Duh, I didn't need to: I joined in the one that was already running. Or do you mean now? I spent 4 years of my life working with homeless people, Hello, in both a voluntary and a paid capacity and don't feel I owe you any explanations on this score. Would you like me to tell you about the experience of one of my fellow volunteers when he took one of the homeless guys to his church with him? Would you like to hear about the tut-tuts, and the dirty looks, and the open abuse he got from the dear, sweet, Christian souls in his congregation, and the way it was made absolutely clear to him that such actions would be unwelcome in future?

What particular significance are you assigning to the soup run question anyway? (Oh, but please don't let this question distract you from the one I've just posted above - for the third time - you know: the one about exactly what you believe and what evidence you have to support that belief. I'd really like to know.)

394. Fleabytes

Comment #136594 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Hello: No, Paula. You just don't like our answers.

You'll have to remind me what they were, I'm afraid. Can you point me to the post where you've answered this one, for instance:

What exactly DO you believe? Please describe your God to us, in as much detail as you can. And then tell us what evidence you have to support the view you hold. We're all ears.

395. Fleabytes

Comment #136591 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Quetz: Oh, and we've been chastised for off-topic posts (atheists in general, not just you and me).

... which some people might think was a bit rich, coming from someone who's only been allowed back onto the website on sufferance!

396. Fleabytes

Comment #136576 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 12:54 pm

D'Arcy: Sorry Paula, did I misunderstand? Charities exist because the universe is indifferent?

What I was saying is that the suffering that requires charities (or other human intervention) for its alleviation is not difficult to explain in atheist terms. In a universe that is not created by an all-powerful and all-loving god, there is no particular reason to suppose that bad things would not happen.

I share your view that it's down to us to make the world a better place. In an atheist universe, who else is going to do it? Theists have the problem of explaining why their oh-so-loving god doesn't.

397. Fleabytes

Comment #136567 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Re charities - atheists, at least, have no difficulty explaining why they're required: the universe is, after all, indifferent. Christians who believe the world was created by an all-loving, all-powerful God, on the other hand, have some serious explaining to do. And when I say "serious", I'm not referring to talking snakes.

398. Fleabytes

Comment #136548 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 11:43 am

Epeeist: I don't think it is going to happen Paula.

Well, that would be very strange behaviour on his part, Epeeist. After all, he seems a genuine kind of person, who is genuinely convinced of the truth of his belief and genuinely wants to convince us of the error of our non-belief. How could he possibly think he can do that without answering our questions? No, I'm confident that he will tell us clearly and honestly all about the god he believes in, and what evidence he bases that belief on. And, of course, he'll be happy to engage in discussion with us thereafter, because that will give him the opportunity to overcome our objections. It will be an interesting discussion, I'm sure. Unless, of course, our funny smell has put him off. (Comment #136368 by hello on March 1, 2008 at 2:43 am)

399. Fleabytes

Comment #136535 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

Hello: As a matter of interest, anyone know the relationship between the number of atheists and the number of theists who help out at soup kitchens?

Has anyone else noticed that it's all take, take, take with these Christians? They ask questions, we answer them. We ask them questions, but they don't answer us. In fact, then they come back and ask yet more questions. Which we answer. And we ask our questions again. But what kind of answers do we get? None at all. Just more questions.

OK, Hello, I'm going to answer your question from my own experience. In my Christian days I used to volunteer with a soup run. There weren't any atheists on the team. How do you explain that? I wouldn't want you to over-tax your brain, so I'll give you the answer now. Only Christians were permitted by the organiser to take part. Whenever we used to get offers from non-Christians, the organiser used to panic and always refused to have them on the basis that - and I'm quoting now - "we couldn't trust him not to assault one of the homeless people if they annoyed him".

Later I stopped volunteering and worked with homeless people profesionally, via a local charity. Of the 4 of us who worked directly with the homeless, only I was Christian.

Now I've answered your question, perhaps you would return the favour and answer the two I posted for you yesterday:

Comment #135857 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 9:52 am
So I'm really excited now. I really think this may be what we've all been waiting for. PLEEEEEEEEEEASE share it with us. I promise that, if it's real, proper, actual evidence (you know - in the real, proper,actual sense of the word, same as we'd use it in any other context), I am absolutely open to being swayed by it, and I'm confident that many others here are too.

and

Comment #135974 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 11:44 am
OK, Hello, let's not play the tired old game of us guessing what you believe and you then claiming you believe something different. Let's cut to the chase.
What exactly DO you believe? Please describe your God to us, in as much detail as you can. And then tell us what evidence you have to support the view you hold. We're all ears.

400. Fleabytes

Comment #136508 by Paula Kirby on March 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

Steve Zara: To be fair, they do provide what they believe is evidence (such as personal revelation). There is much discussion about what constitutes evidence.

Indeed. There is much discussion about it. In other words, we do not "immediately move on to another unconnected question". That, I'm afraid, is far more typical of the theist posters on this site.