401. 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

402. 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

403. 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

404. 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

405. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66302 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 4:33 pm

This is a good article notwithstanding Giskard's qualification. I just posted a comment at the 'On Faith' board. I encourage all RD posters to do the same. The moderator is taking some time before posting comments, but I gather this is normal.

We are very fortunate here that our postings are immediate with no moderation.

I love the way Sam is able to collate specific idiocies and present a good, tight article (except for the mating habits:-)). I think he is getting better and better at this.

Unfortunately, it seems that humanity displays an inability to grow into its frontal lobes (quite large) and develop the sort of consciousness and world-view that is needed to go forth. Instead it wallows in the adrenal glands (very small and with a stranglehold). So Sam's last observation is depressingly true. Nothing seems to be able to disconfirm the 'truths' of the true believer.

I find his comment that Catholic theologians have tried to spin the cannibalistic professed statement recorded in the Council of Trent documents to mitigate its meaning while still believing in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist absolutely spot on.

It would appear that many Catholics know their religion is based on BS (like Sweeney's mum) but that they still adhere to its tenets. Mind boggling. (shakes head and sighs).

1. Comment #66283 by mjwemdee

There's an article on this site that discusses Theresa's 40 year doubts about her religion. Check it out.

Cheers
V

406. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66148 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 3:56 am

41. Comment #66141 by rokort

Please, I wasn't having a go at you:-).

Our species, like many others, are omnivores. We eat anything and everything that gives us sustenance, ie. energy. I don't have a problem with this. I have a niece who is a vegan. She is chronically sick. She always complains about her health status, distresses about her respiratory health, the health of her liver function and what organic salts she pisses in her urine. Drives me batty. She is consumed with angst. I never want to be like her.

As omnivores, humans are able to access and process a variety of foods. Our digestive tract (bless the genes that were able to sort that one out!!) does its job. This is absolutely GIGO. Do you think about what you put into your very efficient system? I don't, at least on a micro level. But I have a fair understanding of nutritional health. I have to: my cats and my fish (omnivores) are dependent on me to supply their nutritional needs. If I fuck up for them, how am I likely to feel about myself? I don't like that thought at all.

Let me mention that i made that remark to point to the fact that not necessarily you need to go out shoot animals for food anymore

That was the point of my story about the butcher and me. Of course, one doesn't necessarily have to go out and shoot his food. If he doesn't, then someone else will and he will purchase it from a butcher.

I thought I had addressed your point about 'human dominance over lesser species'.

I've come to realize we don't need that much meat

.

It's not so much the meat as the quality of protein that we humans seem to need to function optimally. No one really has studied this properly. So all info is apocryphal. That's life. It will change, maybe, depending on funding and commercial influence. And I am not even cynical!!

But like you say, and hungarianelephant acknowledges, we've become disconnected with life that ends on our table (or in the waste-basket). This has led to assuming it's normal to eat meat every day and not thinking how the animal lived its life and how it ended. Because we think we deserve, need or have to consume so much meat we've created a lot of misery

You are constructing something that neither I nor the elephant said at all.

Please address what you want to address a little more cogently, if you don't mind. Many thanks
V

407. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66133 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 2:06 am

37. Comment #66128 by hungarianelephant

The disconnect becomes stronger as the global population burgeons. I lived with an American Jewess in the late 1970s who confessed to me that she hadn't realised that beetroot was a vegetable – she had only known it from supermarket tins!! I was gobsmacked!.

The other thing that I am becoming aware of is that city dwellers never take their shoes off until they are within the sanctity of their homes. How many big city dwellers ever feel the earth between their toes? This is disconnect on a large scale. I can't see that this does us any good at all.

We are seeing some very strange immunological problems within city dwellers. Now, I can't cite any particular studies (although I know there are some) that point to an aseptic (as far as is possible) life style as being deleterious to actual and practical living on this old planet. I do think, however, that the sequestering of children against normal interaction with their environment is having a problematic effect in those children being able to cope with the microscope inhabitants of our world.

I have just bought Carl Zimmer's Parasite Rex and I won't get to read it for a while. I am still reading Stenger's God, a Failed Hypothesis and Dennett is in the wings. AAARRRGGGHHH – will I live long enough to read everything I want to? I doubt it!!

You will be pleased to know that I throw nothing away:-). All dross goes into the compost bin and its beautiful result feeds the soil tilth of my vege garden. I buy very little: well as little as I need – I still have to buy meat for the cats and me. I never buy veges – no need.

Good on you elephant. I am also pretty passionate about this. I wish more were:-).

Hopefully some of us will get there:-). Camo bibles? Give me a break!!
V

408. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66122 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 1:01 am

35. Comment #66121 by rokort

We have shops and fridges these days, you know

I have been fed on meat all my life. Before it was my responsibility to feed myself, I was subject to my parents' feeding habits. That, I think, is pretty normal for most kids.

I recall a time when I was standing at the back of a queue in a butcher's shop waiting to be served. I listened to all those in front of me requesting various cuts of various meats – maybe I was daydreaming, I don't remember. It was after the 'bush' living I described in the above post.

What I do remember was when I came to the front of the queue and asked a butcher for 6 lamb chops. I looked at him quizzically and here is (sort of) the conversation:

Me: I want to ask you for 6 lamb chops and now I am thinking how clinical and displaced is this request about my necessary food. I don't even know the lamb.

Him (smiling): I know, but are you prepared to kill for your own food requirements?

Me: I don't know. I used to do it. But it seems so strange to buy parts of an animal with which I have had no contact. Clinical and distanced somehow, and not part of my immediate responsibility in supplying my own food needs.

Him (still smiling): You have no idea what it is like to kill, drain and then butcher an animal. Maybe you should start on a small scale. I understand what you are saying.

Me: Well, I still want the lamb chops but there seems to have been a shift in my consciousness. I will have to think about this.

So, the lamb chops went into the fridge and were consumed at the next meal. Yes we have shops and fridges and the concomitant sense of distance from the source of our food. I am not convinced that this is a good thing. Necessary, perhaps in this modern world where we can't all produce our own food. There's a big downside though. It's dissonance.

I was 30 years old when that little epiphany happened. I left Melbourne soon after. I found Mullumbimby and built a farm-let. I think it advantaged me beyond expectations. It was certainly the best thing I could have contributed to my boys' upbringing. It made them self sufficient and utterly practical. And me as well! Yeah!!

JesusH has to explain himself. Stereotypical, hateful and dogmatic atheists?? Try it on kiddo – you are bound to fall over. Hahaha, another one joins the ranks!!

My best
V

409. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66119 by Veronique on August 29, 2007 at 12:08 am

29. Comment #65870 by bamafreethinker

I feel that the right to bear arms is one of the vital necessities to the strength of our country – on par with a free press, the freedom of speech, and the separation of church and state. I own several guns, and use them for recreational target shooting and for their collector's value – and to protect my family if need be. Obviously, some degree of gun control is desirable, but when it comes down to it, gun control takes guns away from the law-abiding citizen and leaves them in the hands of the criminals

Oh, dear. What freedom of the press, what freedom of speech and what separation of church and state? It has been so eroded as to be functionally non-existent. Today on our news media, the results of a survey came through. I was only half listening to it and, if you want me to, I'll find the details. The upshot was that the US came through as having the highest ratio at 90 guns per 100 people. Australia has the lowest ratio. As I said, I wasn't listening closely.

I have an email friend in Arkansas who has listed for me the number and type of firearms he has. He had been subject to physical abuse by gangs on the streets (Chicago, if I remember correctly) and has never been without weaponry since. I find this very sad and deeply disturbing, but I cannot gainsay his need to protect himself.

When I lived in the bush, I had to kill my own food. I have no problem looking after my own need for sustenance and that of my kids. I shot kangaroo and wild boar and trapped rabbits. I can also (if I am lucky) catch fish for the same reason. I later farmed my own chickens and killed them for food. Killing a python that's trying to kill my chickens and then preparing the carcass for the table is, likewise not a problem. I also killed young, unwanted, male calves for food. No sweat.

I do, however, have an enormous problem with 'sport' killing. I equate it with a seeming ridiculous desire of humans to prove that they have power over other animal species. I am old enough to remember this sort of thing being lauded through film and cheap literature. I do not see this as proper stewardship. Humans seem to have a propensity to kill for killings sake. This, I find, reprehensible. And, of course, it's never a level playing field. The other animal always loses.

31. Comment #66111 by JesusH

I consider myself a fairly normal person sighs and smiles deprecatingly. I don't understand why you would try to take posters on this thread to task and denigrate them.

Perhaps you will explain why

Cheers
V

410. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #66114 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 11:26 pm

324. Comment #66058 by celestialtea

Try this link: it worked for me. RD is on for about 7 minutes starting at 1:34:00. Good luck and I think you should also consider becoming an aficionado of the great god Quetz because of his sanctifying of tea:-). He condones all teas (and at a pinch, even coffee).

http://www.bbc.co.uk//radio/aod/shows/rpms/radio2/r2_wright_mon.ram

All the best
V

411. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #66110 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 10:29 pm

296. Comment #64542 by Bonzai

There wasn't a shred of evidence to support Einstein's general relativity when he worked it out, data caught up with him later

The point is that data did catch up with Einstein's theory of general relativity. So far as any of these religions and their constructs are concerned, no data has ever caught up, simply because there is no data to support their 'theories'. They have had thousands of years – not one shred of data!!

306. Comment #64619 by Prufrock

Veronique, I share your frustrations but telling to fuck off is not good. Better to tell the person you haven't heard so much crap since you got off the toilet this morning and leave him to read and hopefully learn as we all do. Reasoning with the unreasonable is not particularly fruitful

Telling people to fuck off expresses my extreme frustration. You are right, reasoning with the unreasonable is not fruitful. That's why I eventually tell them to fuck off:-).

308. Comment #64623 by irate_atheist

I know, I know:-). I am with the Cap'n here. It wears too thin; I lose patience. For the record, I don't consider patience a virtue – to me it is more a minor form of despair.

Quetz's blend will revive me:-). Hey Prufrock, do you consider yourself to be A GREAT HUMAN BEING?:-).
V

412. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #66090 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm

JeanB, you are right. I stand chastised. I have no excuse to offer, other than I enjoyed the Gray 'interview'. The audience appeared to as well.

Maybe that is because I can also be aggressive (assertive may be a better word, in my case, maybe not) about my passions. I can also be over the top. She sort of took over the session and I have been known to do that as well. Ah, dear – no one's perfect.

I only thing I am not, is slavish, nor am I a follower of fashion. Obviously I was not in Edinburgh, but writers' festival attendees are there for titillation as much as anything else.

I think they got it. They enjoyed the session. 'Nuff said.

Cheers
V

413. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #66037 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 2:24 am

24. Comment #65853 by JeanB

I have just entered my diatribe to the Herald. Small fry, but one has to do what one can.

The comments, from people in my country, irritate me. I attempted to be non-confrontational and, instead, informational. Not very good at curtailing my contempt:-). I did try!!

I have to add that I really liked Muriel Gray's laughter. It was infectious (to me!!) Yeah, sure she could be seen as over-the-top, aggressive, an acolyte (yukko), but she sure kept the irreligious bent happening. So good on her!!

Thanks for posting the link, mate
V

414. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #66029 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 12:54 am

16. Comment #65957 by Yorker

Terrific idea, but I'll need some help:-). Can we have some variety of avatars?

Smart (little - no I didn't say it out loud or in CAPITALS:-)) bugger aren't you? It's a great idea. I see you are changing your avatar with alacrity - are you bored???

I can't be bothered commenting on the article. Sigh!!
V

415. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #66026 by Veronique on August 28, 2007 at 12:42 am

27. Comment #66020 by Tumara Baap

Without elaborating, I agree with you regarding the attitude of America to other cultures. I found the New Yorker article you referred to and read it. The two more current papers George Packer cites as part of Kilcullen's lexicon are probably worth reading. I am looking forward to the release of Mark Lilla's book. I hope he may be able to teach us quite a bit as well.

We all have to try to understand what's going on far more fully than we do. I don't know about you, but I think we tend to reduce our understanding of Iraq and its culture to some handy concepts that don't describe, let alone enunciate, the great complexity that the effect of the war 'as she is waged' so to speak, has on Muslims.

It's not just America. Australia is much the same, though less so and for somewhat different reasons. Mike Kelly of the Australian Army, now turned Labor candidate in the coming elections, has been quite blunt about his perceptions of the mismanagement of the stabilisation in Iraq after the initial storming of that country. He laid most of the blame at Rumsfeld's insensitive storm trooper's boots. Rumsfeld sacked thousands of men employed in regular jobs when the Ba'athists were disenfranchised.

Of course, that led to his (Kelly's) testimony being discredited and marginalised by the ruling Liberal Coalition. I suspect his public interviews made more sense to the public than did the rebuttal by the Fed. Minister for Defense.

Here's the link to the New Yorker article mentioned by Baap.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/12/18/061218fa_fact2

It's definitely worth a read. Thanks mate.
V

416. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #66019 by Veronique on August 27, 2007 at 10:30 pm

69. Comment #65777 by Graham

I got the same feeling in The Enemies of Reason. I think that C4 and RD would have been absolutely straight about what they were filming and why. If these fundamentalists don't live in the real world they are not going to read real papers, news or much else. They exist in an incestuous, perpetually self-indocrinating society.

I suspect the people who actually 'understood' what was happening were those who weren't as caught up in their own self-importance as were Haggard and the Atlantis DNA woman and others.

RD was out to give it all a good shot and film exposure. He knew he couldn't argue with most of the health and/or religious fundamentalists. Hell, we all know that. He's a bit more polite than we tend to be. That 'draws out' more from the people being interviewed who are 'getting into' a doco.

Heady stuff for some. Not others (they are seasoned interviewees). I really think that's pretty much all there is to it.

Mathis and Durkin are another kettle of fish altogether. They are what is commonly known in most parts as 'scum'.:-)

Cheers
V

417. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66017 by Veronique on August 27, 2007 at 10:08 pm

30. Comment #66012 by steveroot, hahaha.

No he hasn't - light relief. Besides he's done it before and it's always fun:-)

Don't stop it too short:-)
V

418. Feeding the fear gene

Comment #65845 by Veronique on August 27, 2007 at 4:48 am

Yorker, what's that avatar all about? You are a Scot. Tell me please, or, at least, give me a good story:-)

I love stories
V

419. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65841 by Veronique on August 27, 2007 at 3:55 am

31. Comment #65835 by pewkatchoo

Getting the dander up is good!! Forehead line defying genes is terrific!!:-). My genes aren't as lineless as yours, or maybe it's the sun in Oz:-). Laughing is a great way to develop lines: much better than serious contemplation of the ineffable and inadequate. (I'll get done for that one!!)

Go, baby!! Give no quarter; take no prisoners. Don't be seduced into intellectual wankerism!! The natural kind is far more satisfying:-). Someone needs to tell the Flea that piece of real living:-). Billy what do you mean, 'popping up':-)? Hahaha.

Flea – take your measure. You are on notice!! When are you going to pay your dues for the free forum you find here? Word for word (as the lawyers would like to be paid) you take the cake. Isn't it interesting to you that, no matter how many words you type, over and over again, you just can't break through common sense and reasoned argument with your religiosity and mouthiness?

I have to give you perseverance but that's all. I can't ascribe sense to your postings. Neither can most people here. Ho hum, that's the way it goes. Sorry buddy, you are way out of your intellectual depth on these threads.

But don't let that stop you, please!! Just pay your dues. Everyone will be happy then, knowing that you have paid for your posting rights. Wouldn't that make you feel more righteous and able to deliver your message? Righteous is good, no? I am sure you get my drift.

Build another line
V

420. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65830 by Veronique on August 27, 2007 at 1:53 am

At least the photo identifier called the Flea Mr. rather than Rev, although the body of the piece does.

Corylus wipe the screen off, have a shower:-). Notice that the Flea has no lines on his forehead – lack of life experience to my mind. No cogitation, no furrowing of the brow, no introspection. Bland acceptance defines him. SG, have more compassion than to thrust that article on Corylus while she's enjoying her breakfast!!:-).

The worry is that he's threatening to institute faith-based schools with taxpayers' funds. Join the gravy-train, Flea. That's right, turn all the little kiddies into little fleas. Go on, just do it!!

Seriously, I don't know how your taxes work in Scotland; can you mount a campaign to stop the Flea's proposed faith-schools being publicly funded? We may give him heaps here, how about the real world?

They are all parasites. Every last one of them. AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH.

Pewkatchoo God bothering for dummies. Is there any other kind?

But he loves you!
V

421. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65337 by Veronique on August 23, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Has it struck anyone that Mathis and Durkin have similar modus operandi? I believe the Great Global Warming Swindle is now facing at least a couple of lawsuits. Someone can disabuse me.

Are the scientists beginning to be picked off, not quite systematically? Are the conservative religious lot and the carbon-based fuel corporations hand-in-glove with each other to further present selected interview data, quotes and old, now disproved, scientific results in an attempt to subvert their power bases to a more quiescent and self-serving state?

Is that form of discrediting or seeming co-opting of proper scientists, who are publishing authors, now using the law rather than superstitious belief structures to denigrate those scientists' well considered comments?

I hope this sort of thing isn't a pattern forming. Are they going to start a legal terrorising of people whose comments, reviews and op-eds they don't like? Who's next?

Cheers
V

422. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65034 by Veronique on August 22, 2007 at 5:15 pm

OK, I'll play

I don't know why CNN is posting this form. It merely encourages believers to prop up their superstitious belief systems by giving them increased airtime. On the other hand it allows those of us who consider religion to be a dangerous relic of historical ignorance of the nature of the universe to have our say. While ever religion holds sway in matters of state, there will be internecine strife as there has been for centuries. We all plead for a better world and then hijack that pleading with the abrogation of responsibility by praying to a sky-god to make things better. This is the way of madness.

So long as people enjoy a disease-free longevity with technological gadgets about them, thank science not a mythical being. We all have to grow up and look at our world as the most stunning place and to make the most of our lives, the only one we know. There is no wishfully thought afterlife that implies tedium beyond bearing. This is our life. The world is our 'heaven'. I can see it, feel it, wax lyrical about it, but I cannot be so arrogant as to believe that it was 'created' for us. Is religion under attack? I truly hope so.

Cheers
V

423. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65019 by Veronique on August 22, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Hi Yorker – How was Madagascar? Welcome home.

Like everyone here, I am not impressed with Nature journal. It's bad enough to have to cope with the dangers of religious moderates and fundamentalists out there, but to have the editors of such a journal as Nature accept non-scientific and religious articles, reviews and whatever is an appalling betrayal of the serious scientific community that works hard to present testable theories and adds to the sum total of our scientific knowledge.

I am really tempted, as a lay person, to write to Nature expressing my dismay at what appears to me to be further evidence of hijacking by the religites. Now Collins, a scientist, is using a scientific journal to propagate a book about his imaginary sky-god.

The editors of Nature need to be told this is unacceptable. Good on Sam Harris for his letter.

There is a certain argument to be made, indeed it has been made, for believers and non-believers to join forces and push back the tide of unreason, but bending over backwards (or forwards as Carlin would undoubtedly view it) in order to accommodate religion is most unwise and has ramifications that those editors obviously cannot see.

As soon as I saw Biz's post scroll onto my computer, my heart sank. Oh no! Here we go again. Please don't let this thread become a Biz bash. Post after post after post of nothing much being said at all. NOTHING is going to change his mindset. He trolls here without paying any dues to the site and diminishes the level of debate and comments. It has been going on for nearly a year. Sigh.

And good morning everyone:-).
V

424. The Politics of God

Comment #64892 by Veronique on August 22, 2007 at 7:50 am

I sent the link to my brother. One day he may post here, but in the meantime this is what he emailed back to me.

I agree with you about the essay from Mark Lilla for which you sent me the link, and I agree with his analysis. Most people have absolutely no idea the price Europe paid for the secularism we now enjoy - the Wars of Religion he talks about affected most of Europe, but in particular what we now call Germany. They involved what we would now regard as war crimes on a scale that is barely imaginable.

Whole cities were wiped out, with deliberate slaughter of the civilian inhabitants (so much for targeting civilians being a 20th century phenomenon). The population of Germany in 1648, at the close of the Thiry Years War, was only one third of what it had been at the start, and it took some 200 years to recover.

Hobbes may have been leading the intellectual charge (and I was fascinated by the case Lilla makes for that), but an exhausted Europe basically said to religious warfare: "Never again!" I don't how much RD knows about this monumental harm that religion did to 17th century Europe. It makes what is going on in Iraq between Sunni and Shia look like side skirmishes.

Unfortunately, not only is this a lesson others have no intention of learning from, it is one many of us Westerners seem eager to forget. Some of our fundamentalists show the sort of arrogance that can only proceed from profound ignorance - they are like children playing with fire.

I don't know whether Lilla is consciously defending Huntington's thesis in The Clash of Civilizations, but I must admit I am much less dismissive of it than is popular today.

Thanks for the nudge Baeoz - I also pre-ordered the book today from Amazon.

I listened to The Religion Report on Radio National this morning. Both Germans and the Brits are concerned with the massive super-mosques that are planned (and financed by the Saudis) for London and Europe. Here's a brief quote from the ABC

In cities all over Europe - Marseilles, Lyons, Cologne and London - there's controversy over plans to build large mosques. The proposed 'mega' mosque in East London would cover 17 acres and may end up housing 70,000 worshippers, and 200,000 people have signed a petition against it on the website of 10 Downing Street. Here's the link to the transcript if anyone wants to read the interviews:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/2011495.htm#transcript

Cheers
V

425. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64781 by Veronique on August 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm

32. Comment #64763 by CruciFiction

I want to add my thanks for the quote. I have only heard her name a couple of times and can't recall any context.

I'll look her up. If she can say things like that, she's pretty clear in my book.

Julia Sweeney is terrific and I am glad she's making a movie of her show. I have only ever seen about 17 minutes of her on the TED talks. Loved it. She touches the funny nerve very well.

I agree with OhioAtheist and others about the exposure. It is because of RD and the others. They are doing a great job of lifting the atheist profile. We will see crappy stuff, pitched to the lowest common denominator audience and we will see serious, thoughtful interviews and discussions. The point is that 3 years ago, we wouldn't have seen anything, either crappy or good.

So I am on the side of 'any publicity is good publicity', even when I spit chips at the questions, assumptions and at some of the people who get interviewed. Atheism has coverage and that's got to be better than no coverage.

Cheers
V

426. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64638 by Veronique on August 21, 2007 at 5:24 am

elephant, where are you when we need to know whether this action will proceed.

I know you are in the UK; do you have any understanding of US defamation law? I know it's very dodgy in Australia; very difficult to disprove and usually settled out of court, because the legal costs are so high and there's no way of second guessing the legal appeal structure. In a word, very expensive, with little guarantee of success.

Poor old PZ. What an unwanted intrusion into his life.

My heart goes out to you
V

427. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64626 by Veronique on August 21, 2007 at 3:35 am

Oh PZ

This is going to waste so much of your time. The only ones that win are the solicitors.

Dear, oh dear. You have my support but that's not much, I know. You need dosh for this stuff and you are only an academic on an academic's salary - goes without saying that your funds will be severely tested in the coming months.

This is a vexacious action that you are facing. I hope it is seen that way in the courts. Try to keep your beautiful big smile on your face.

You will have an enormous support. I hope it helps.

Cheers
V

428. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64583 by Veronique on August 20, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Paul

Have you read Paul Davies' The Goldilocks Enigma? He writes about the 'just rightness' of our planet and its position. He can be difficult, but it's well worth reading.

This is post 1917. It would be appropriate to finish at the end of WW1. There appears to be nothing more worthwhile adding:-). This thread is not going anywhere.

Cheers
V

429. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64562 by Veronique on August 20, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Paul

By the way, don't think I don't see your cunning plan, Veronique. In the battle to make the 2000th post, V is several steps ahead. Even if she is four or five posts late, all she needs to do is to go back to her oft-posted post and delete it a few times. Post number 2005 will become 2004, then 2003 etc... A clever plan, but will it work?

Hahaha - tell me how to delete the repeats, please. There doesn't appear to be a facility on the page to enable this. I honestly have no idea how that happened. How embarrassing!!!

And you haven't answered my questions:-).

Cheers
V

Edit: I have just looked back on the previous page. All the repeats are in bold!! Very strange.

Edit2: Done it!! The repeats are gone. I am so sorry, but still don't understand how it happened.

430. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64552 by Veronique on August 20, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Benway

I am flabbergasted!! How did that happen? I only posted once, I promise you. I created the post in Word over some time during yesterday. How could it get posted so many times??

I don't understand - that's very weird.

No spam, promise. Have you got an explanation? It doesn't make sense.
Wooooo
V

431. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64514 by Veronique on August 20, 2007 at 11:10 am

Good grief. This thread has become a marathon. I only check it now and then. I am glad that Dianelos seems to have taken his convoluted thinking somewhere else.

I have to say thanks Benway for your post 1451 to Elli. That's where I started today. Read about 4 pages and jumped to page 38.

Paul, I have read some of your posts, certainly not all, so forgive me if I go over topics already covered. Oh, and I am not a good or erudite debater. I like to think however, that I have a fair amount of common sense.

I know you've said that you consider the bible the work of men and not the word of god. Where then do you get your idea of god? How do you know what god's will is in order to act accordingly?

One of the things my father taught me was to be intellectually open enough to entertain ideas without adopting them holus bolus. I consider that a valuable commodity and it has served me well throughout my life. It's akin to trying to put oneself in the shoes of someone else and attempting to understand the precepts he holds without embracing them. It's difficult and not entirely achievable; however the intention and goodwill is there, as is the effort.

I read your posts and think that the god you are talking about is actually superfluous to what you do as a responsible person. Were you indoctrinated as a child into a religious belief or did you adopt that belief as an adult?

I really don't want to make assumptions here, you understand:-).

If there is no God-given purpose to human life, why should we act morally?

It really isn't enough to say that people do act morally, or to explain the reasons why they do. The question is, why should they?

I gave up using words like should, could, ought etc in relation to questions like this ages ago. It is basically what is, and what isn't.

I have never had any inclination to adopt a religious construct in my life. I behave 'morally' because I would not want anyone to treat me poorly and am therefore not prepared to treat anyone else poorly. To me it's very simple. I believe this is called the 'Golden Rule'. Can you please explain to me why I have this (as far as I am concerned) normal behaviour pattern without the concomitant belief in god and his will and edicts? I don't lie, thieve or otherwise do harm to people or other animals in whose company I find myself.

I think you use the word moral in a strictly religious sense. I think that 'moral' has a far wider meaning. It encompasses an enormous compassion for all life (people on this site will tell you that I don't make all that much distinction between humans and other animals).

So, Dr B, what's the alternative? If we don't accept that there's an intention behind the universe's existence, why should we be moral?

We are co existent with our planetary partners and without them we could not live. That's enough for me.

Please don't consign the chimpanzees to moral obscurity and improper behaviour – please read Jane Goodall. A more gentle person who has seen appalling depravity and can maintain compassion, I have yet to see.

We all act in ways that advantage us. That doesn't make such actions 'egoism'. It makes us normal; acting in ways that benefit us and those around us. We are social animals (like all primates) and tend towards group cohesion not devastation. These are observable traits.

'The Bible is the Word of God'. This works for them - there are many beautiful passages

The bible is the most boringly, self-centred book that I have ever read. It is full of self-adulation; mea culpas all over the place, written by a disparate group (in time and space); god's revolting discarding of his creatures in the most horrible fashion. Then he brings in a new player to expatiate his hideousness as a bloke (he says, is of his own loins) to die to expiate sins that he says his creatures are born with. That he , created and inculcated!!

Doesn't this strike you as absurd? It does me!!

Most Christians I know try hard to be more honest, less selfish and basically live with greater integrity.

Most people (not Christians) I know also try hard to be more cognisant of their basic belief in themselves and others and try not to deny their own basic integrity in their dealings with others.

You can say to a Christian "They are children of God, made in His image". Central to Christian ethics is the sanctity of life principle. It says that every life is of supreme value because we are all made by God and have a special status in the world. While I am sure you may find the language unnecessarily poetical, it would be very clear to Christians what it meant.

'the sanctity of life' has been hijacked by the fundamentalists. It has stymied the very research that has contributed to our well-being and longevity. You live because of scientific research; you didn't die because science worked out how to keep you alive through the travails of diphtheria, smallpox, typhoid, poliomyelitis and various dysenteries etc etc. Would you despise (and call them irreligious) those who, painstakingly and with amazing verve, vigour and an undoubted intelligence and curiosity, devoted their lives to pursuing scientific research that benefited our species. Of course you wouldn't. The majority of these remarkable people had no belief in a sky god. If they had they would never have been moved to question anything. You need to acknowledge those people, not for their belief in god, but for their redoubtable courage in looking beyond the square.

Others will a far better job of taking you to task. As I said, I am no debater, but I sure know how the world works. And it's not by an ancient book written by illiterate blokes whose world-view was steeped in fear, fantasy and magical retribution. Those I have any regard for, those who have asked, observed and reached, tortuously for explanations are the ones to whom I doff my hat.

My very best to you, with qualifications.
V

432. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64343 by Veronique on August 19, 2007 at 4:44 pm

It is utterly pathetic to have some 9 or so adults standing on a dais answering some half-witted question about religion. I presume other questions were asked of the candidates; I sincerely hope so. Why did the moderator allow such a loopy question into the debate?

These are people who are running for a job that requires breadth of thought, understanding and governance. Yet nearly every one of them handed over authority to a sky god. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Kucinich is the only one who didn't really fall for it. Clinton is useless, the rest no better. It's all very well to say that Americans won't vote for a non god-botherer, but that spectacle was revolting.

No wonder we are on the way to the Unlightenment. Disgusting.

Yuk
V

433. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64320 by Veronique on August 19, 2007 at 2:38 pm

283. Comment #64314 by n0rr1s

Thanks for your thought-out reply. I knew you were kind:-).

I am measured and thoughtful in my dealings with real people when I meet them. I wouldn't dream of being as rude as I am on here to the religites.

The people I know and those that I meet are as tolerant of me as I am of them. We get on in a world where beliefs differ and strange thoughts waft around the ether. I engage them in conversations that involve science, technology and rationality. They engage me back with belief systems that they know are insupportable. They admit to a deeply held and, yes, indoctrinated belief. We don't get anywhere very fast but we respect each other. That's the best result.

It is just that here, I can't see any point in pandering to lunacy after it has been thrust, over and over again, on these threads. It doesn't get anywhere, even with the best of intentions. What's the 'best result' achieved on these threads? I can't recall, but is there anyone who has learnt to argue rationally about irrationally held beliefs here? It can be frustrating, oh yes.

Good on you and the others for being so patient. I can, but I have a far shorter fuse than you guys:-)

Cheers, mate
V

434. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64316 by Veronique on August 19, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Oh god. It doesn't stop does it?

I get these feelings of impotent rage:-). Colquhoun is right. That political leaders are up to their eyes in this shit; that they push through legislation actually rewarding purveyors of trash is forcing an endarkenment on all of us.

Do you think we are becoming a threatened species? We could apply for a grant to preserve us and our habitat:-).

Bremas, did your cousin have to undergo the fairly daunting requirements to graduate as a regular doctor? Does she have to practise as a resident in a proper hospital? How anyone can study medicine for 6 years and come out the other side as a homeopath boggles the mind.

Chayanov - they have to shake their hands to expel the 'bad' energy that they so kindly absorb from their patients' illnesses:-)

Pathetic isn't it?

Good morning to you all
V

435. The Politics of God

Comment #64312 by Veronique on August 19, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Thanks Giskard

Much easier to read without all the moving blips on the page.

Cheers
V

436. The Politics of God

Comment #64309 by Veronique on August 19, 2007 at 1:42 pm

This essay is one of the most comprehensive I have read. It's also frightening. I keep forgetting that our modern liberal democracy is so young, has such a tenuous hold on our political constructs and still an experiment. Lilla's essay shatters any complacency I may entertain in my little world.

He brings into sharp focus my inability to understand the mind of a dedicated political theocrat like Ahmadinejad. I will have to read this again and I will buy his book. I have to make myself understand what I so dismissively call 'religious delusion'. And I have to understand it in the wider political arena. I don't mean the mad fundamentalists of Christianity, although I am worried at their emergence or re-emergence on the political scene. The solid, implacable faith in theocracy that underscores the lives of people in power like Ahmadinejad is truly frightening. And Lilla is quite right in that the understanding of this lies with us in the West.

I sound like I have never thought of this before; I have, but I need to think more. Thanks for posting this essay, Josh.
V

437. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #64292 by Veronique on August 19, 2007 at 12:11 pm

75. Comment #63905 by USA_Limey

I just re-read this thread. I wish I had your sense of humour. I have posted an un-funny comment about Darwin2 on another thread. I should have read your posts first:-).

I have read lots of your posts – it never occurred to me that you were sexist. Now Henri, that's another matter. And I am not even a goddess. Wow. She has some chip on her shoulder.

Thanks for lightening my mood:-).
V

438. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64283 by Veronique on August 19, 2007 at 11:38 am

275. Comment #64260 by n0rr1s

You are being kind as Steve99 is. What makes you think that Darwin2 will ever grow up into reason? You may be right; he may think he understands something important and that other people need to hear it. How many times does he have to be told that no one on this site does want to hear it? Why doesn't he get it? Is he that thick?

I'm not about to bend over backwards in being kind and try to attribute good motives to people like Darwin2. He has been allowed to hijack this thread and spout the same rubbish that all the other god botherers have done on this site.

I joined this site in order to learn from people who had a far wider ranging knowledge than I do. I have met philosophers, biochemists, medicos, software designers, scientists of various flavours and many others. I have been treated to a lot of considered arguments and discussions (and, I have to say, a lot of humour). I have learnt a great deal, far more than I have been able to contribute. I am happy visiting this site. It is one of the delights in my life. I have found a community in which I can feel comfortable, give an opinion, be castigated and also be informed.

I have developed a regard for posters on this site. I have been reading Dawkins since the early 80s. I have a regard for him. His books have added to my understanding of the world I find myself in. This site and Dawkins have led me to so many other areas of enquiry that have also added to the bulk of my knowledge and understanding. I am grateful for all this.

To then find people posting at this site who contribute absolutely nothing of value pisses me off. They take up time and posting space: they distract other posters (including me!) from pursuing rational discourse. They have no sense of humour – what religite does?

Don't try to tell me that the rest of you don't get pissed off. Attempting to debate with these clowns may be fun for a bit; goading, taunting, trying to bring some reason to a debate with them flexes mental muscles. At the end, all that happens is that we are regaled with the same tired bullshit about their unsubstantiated belief structures. Nothing changes. It is wearying. And that's when I get mouthy, rude and intolerant. I am not about to apologise for my behaviour either (I know you are not asking that I do:-)).

Yes, I can ignore their posts. I try to until they get my goat. After that, as far as I am concerned, it's open slather.

This man is 66, two years older than I, and he comes across as an adolescent with little or no capacity to argue his case. It drives me batty. If he would talk about the weather maybe there would be some meeting point. But no, he persists in writing drivel. 9 back-to-back posts! Good grief. He's as bad as the Flea.

You never know, at some point the penny may drop, and he may begin to understand what it means to think rationally

.

It hasn't happened to any of these drips so far. How tolerant do you want to be? Explain to me why I should be considerate of such twaddlers and their twaddle. I can't see it.

The only thing I can apologise to the rest of you for is my intolerance for idiots. I do not suffer fools gladly. They do not belong on this site and I will continue to tell them so. Unfortunately, that won't make them go away.

I wouldn't post, interminably, on a religious site. I would know when I am not welcome. Why do these twits continue to post on a site that has nothing to do with their beliefs; where they are subject to ridicule and derision? My conclusion is that they all suffer from some form of psychological/sociological deficit. I want them out of my face she said, in a fit of pique, but also with a smile:-). It just becomes a game of tag.

It's 4.19am here in Mullum – too late to go to bed. Another of the Quetz's special blend is about to be brewed. Oh to be a cat. They are all strewn across the chaise, snoozing happily.

The online news sites have posted so I'll read what's happening in the real world, dire as it may be.

Good morning to you all:-).
V

439. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64255 by Veronique on August 19, 2007 at 2:56 am

You are talking to yourself here Darwin2. Time to leave this thread and, hopefully this site. You contribute nothing of value. You carry on like a two-bob watch. Your delusional beliefs are wrong-headed. Are you prepared to accept that you have delusional beliefs? I doubt it. Such is the power of the mindset. Such is the power of neurologically induced belief systems. I do not 'believe' in anything. I assess with the best available evidence that I can find. Belief doesn't even enter the equation.

Comments 262 to 269 are yours. Give up kiddo, you have been deemed a troll. Go back to the underground and keep digging. No one in the sunlight wants to know your distressed way of looking at the world.

You are a retired forensic specialist in what? You don't specify. Could be wankeroo as far as I would be able to ascertain from your posts.

My beliefs are only delusional if they are wrong. Your beliefs are delusional if they are wrong. I am not arrogant in that I openly state my beliefs may be totally wrong. Are you capable of stating openly that your beliefs may be totally wrong and that God may indeed exist?

Golum may understand you. I certainly don't. And I have no wish to; you are outside anything I could call reason. So was Golum. He was absorbed by the belief that he could rule with the touchstone that he had stolen. He lived in the netherworld. And so do you.

Forensic what? Have you developed a forensic belief system.that overrides rationality and a scientific explanation for appalling events? Fuck off. You need a large dose of reason. Where do you get off? I don't even know there is an answer to that question.

Goodbye
V

440. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64239 by Veronique on August 18, 2007 at 9:46 pm

44. Comment #64234 by Lil_Xunzian

Calm down:-). I agree that your country isn't now what it used to be. It's heading toward Unlightenment. Look at the upside – your friend chose reason. Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Michel Onfray, AC Grayling and heaps of others have published books that will help people discard a faith in which they have been indoctrinated.

There's a battle on – reason vs superstition. Don't give up, just get out there in whatever way you can. It's a time to be brave. What was it that Kennedy said (in a different context)?

Your friend will, over time, be able to articulate why she/he was drawn to (indoctrinated) Christianity. From what I can gather from posters on this site, it's very complicated. Her/his response to you is a short straw, a simplistic way of encapsulating a very convoluted and emotional mindset into some commonly understood and acceptable explanation. She/he probably just agreed with you.

I, like you, have little if any understanding of what it 'feels' like to believe in something like the existence of a god that is insupportable because of its lack of evidence and its incredulous claims that defy common sense, let alone science.

The Christian evangelical movement has cleverly hijacked modern music (with its trance-like mass jumping reactions from an enthusiastic audience – do you know anything about 'doof' parties?). Have you watched the singers at these mega-churches? They are in trance. As are those who seek out doof dances, and who knows what they believe in? Many and varied, I would suspect.

I'll get hammered here. Music is one of the major unifying sensory experiences that allow people to assume that every one is engaged in the same reaction. They are at the same physical place after all. And they appear to be reacting similarly.

The boring rituals of the established churches have lost those that relate to a far more societally available and meaningful (to them) exposition of belief. Song, current song, not old world dirges.

Remember the reactions to The Beatles. They were hailed as musical gods. People wept at their concerts, frothed at the mouth at the very prospect of being at a concert. It's group-think: people being seduced by the group; people finding acceptance within a group.

Modern Christian cults embrace elitism, at least that's my take here in Australia. God wants you to be successful and success is measured in terms of financial wealth. What a WASP ideal! Sanctioned by god, no less! So the evangelicals band together in groups and appear to hold a lot more sway than they really do.

Events move in mysterious ways:-). This seems to be the age of the fundamentalists who are likely to kill you if you don't adhere to their teachings. Frightening? Yes. That's why we all have to join those who have written books, lecture constantly and in all ways put themselves out there in order to combat what they see as a diminution of reason.

Don't rail about losing your country, act now to secure a future free from superstition (I know how hopelessly idealistic that sounds – it's a rallying cry!:-). I wish I could write like Shakespeare – Agincourt comes to kind!

Don't let the Stephen Baldwins win. Is he a brother to Alec Baldwin?

This is not the best of posts. I hope that I had something worth while to say.

Cheers
V

441. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #64150 by Veronique on August 18, 2007 at 4:13 am

76. Comment #63909 by mmurray

Thanks so much Michael. Wonderful to see the whole 47 odd minutes with no interruptions!! I have some more pithy quotes for my blackboard:-).

Well done, RD. I have to assume that all the people you interviewed or otherwise consulted knew exactly who you were. How many of them actually understood what you were representing? If they knew that your implacable logic was what they were confronting, then it's even more disturbing. They, knowingly, pitted their unsubstantiated and incredible claims against rigid examination and don't find themselves wanting. That is worrying in the extreme. That's denial to an extraordinary magnitude. That's enormous arrogance. That's virtually unanswerable; reason is not the issue!

The best and the most entertaining was your interview with Steve Fuller. He articulates, very well, what you are up against. What an enthusiastic interview!! What an enormous job to take on. Let's take book on the odds. Let's employ a well-respected analyst group to take international surveys and chart the results (provided the group is prepared to list its carefully worded questions and statistical biases and its corrections for bias).

Tree-ness, rock-ness? Yes I understand that some people imbue qualities to inanimate things that are a construct of their own minds. That's been going on forever and it started with what we call 'animism' these days. Totally understandable in a world where certainty was sought and the best possible 'fit' was promulgated as truth.

What I don't understand is how, in the 21st century, these people cannot be more self-interrogative. Maybe they don't hear the words they utter. Maybe they are so used to uttering the words and making a case for arcane (ie. "I know more than you do and in a different way that I can subjectively evidence") concepts that they don't know how silly it sounds.

Or, maybe yes, they do understand. They do understand that you just don't 'get it' when they try to explain to you that there is more than the modern scientific way to understand the complex and nuanced world we live in than in our wishing and dreaming.

Oh, Richard, I wish you luck (another of those hopeful concepts)! I applaud you, and your producers, for bringing this to the forefront of current thinking models.

Cheers
V

442. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64086 by Veronique on August 17, 2007 at 3:34 pm

258. Comment #64012 by steve99

I think you are kind. When I look back over the posts of Darwin2, I can't see that he has any doubt whatsoever that his long-held belief in karma and reincarnation may be in danger of crashing and burning. I certainly don't think he wants it to crash and burn. He is not looking for a rational way out of the irrational maze he actively chose to wander through. He is thoroughly steeped in his delusion.

I suppose that here he just finds ridicule. No-one here screams at him that he is going to hell for his beliefs. He has been given a good trot here. Other posters, who tried to engage him, took his original posts seriously enough. He remains stubbornly and irrationally grafted to his beliefs. His last post lays that out fairly clearly to my mind. He is incapable of rational discussion especially when the engagement gets down to the wire. As are Biz, the Flea, Danielos et al. The arguments are tired, repetitive and remain as delusional as when they started on this site.

So, no I don't think that he comes onto this site in an attempt to garner something that will help him view his delusions more rationally. I think it is more likely that no –one else will talk to him as patiently or for so long as posters here do. That's why he has written his own book and made comments. How many responses does he get? He's certainly pitching to the wrong audience here and he knows it. So why does he do it? I thinks he just likes to argue and cement his irrationality deeper.

He is like Biz and the other religites who come here. Nothing changes the way any of them thinks about their own particular belief structure. I suspect they have a proselytising agenda; the negativity they receive is akin to that received by religite doorknockers and tends to bolster their beliefs: they can shake their heads, smile sadly and say: "Well, I tried. I gave it my best shot. Sorry god, buddha or whatever. I did try." I don't think there is any cry for help (maybe for understanding) from any of them.

The fact that they come back here over months indicates to me that they have a deep need to voice their beliefs over and over again. I am sure my sister would have something to say about their psychological state and mental well-being. Note to self – ask her.

Maybe it's a bit like water wearing away at the banks of a stream. Maybe they feel that if they go on and on they will wear away at non-belief and be able to welcome one of us into their fold. I really don't know. Maybe they are drawn to slings and arrows; a disturbing mindset. All I do know is that they repeat their delusional beliefs ad nauseum.

Cheers
V

443. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63996 by Veronique on August 17, 2007 at 7:22 am

Someone needs to tell Darwin2 that the reason he gets so much negative response from this site is that it doesn't matter whether he believes in reincarnation and karma, or god, or tooth fairies; all these beliefs require the same lack of reasoning.

I believe Pewkatchoo said that several threads ago and to someone else.

Someone needs to tell Darwin2 that he is not receiving the same reaction here that he finds amongst his friends and family that have different beliefs from his. There is no fear or discomfort on this thread. After reading all the comments (well, as many as I needed to get the drift), all that has happened is that posters on this thread have come to the same point of ridicule, despair, hair-tearing out behaviour that is inevitable when attempting to reason with people who maintain a belief stance that exhibits no evidence for that belief. (255 comments and counting:-)).

I think that 251. Comment #63956 sheepscarer has made a short, very succinct post that explains the position of those that would try to argue or discuss rationally with 'believers' of any sort of superstition. Believers just don't seem to get it. They read but do not process.

Someone needs to tell Darwin2 that he lives in a parallel la-la land that differs not at all materially from the one that his relatives live in. Someone needs to tell him that he is as delusional as they and would be better off posting on a Buddhist site. With a bit of Hindu thrown in. RD's site is not the site he is looking for. He is wasting his own and everyone else's time here. That he will not find acceptance and/or discussion of his 'beliefs' by talking to people who have no belief. That he would be better served by vacating this site and finding one where he could argue the finer points of his belief with fellow believers.

Goodnight
V

444. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63949 by Veronique on August 17, 2007 at 12:46 am

30. Comment #63753 by mjwemdee

26th March is about 3° into Aries. You are right; who cares!! soto volce - similar - both fire signs:-).

Hahahaha
V

445. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63948 by Veronique on August 17, 2007 at 12:34 am

249. Comment #63942 by BAEOZ

Hi, honey!! It's really satisfactory to have someone on RD's site who lives in the Antipodes. We are on the same longitude!!:-).

I'm an old chook. Watching EOR did make me think back on my twenties and thirties. I didn't do the things so many of my age group (well, they were a bit younger) were doing. I had babies instead, then my husband suicided and I had only me to look after kiddies. So I couldn't go anywhere, even if I had wanted to. But I watched all my group leaving Oz on 'trips'; watched them coming back in eastern clothing, with nose rings and sprouting Hindu and Buddhist esoteric, 'spiritual' ready made quotes and ideologies and I was bemused. Then vegetarianism became the vogue (Buddhist spawned). Then the Orange People, chanting down the street. Then the adherents to that famous charlatan Guru Maharaji. It kept gathering momentum. Then astrology, herbal remedies, people waning sick because they had Giardia. But they all prayed or sang and danced their way through the 80s.

The old Chinese proverb that wishes for us 'to live in interesting times' will always be a truism. Life is always interesting. You are younger than I, but I guarantee that when you reach your middle sixties, you will have a similar breadth of experience:-) and the same wider view of what sort of world you live in:-).

I am what you call a 'jack of all trades'; breadth without depth. Don't get me wrong. I am not castigating myself for that lack of depth. But I have to say I am looking down the barrel of maybe 30 years left on this planet. My frustration comes from a lot of earlier wasted time. That's not fair either. I lived my life as I saw fit at the time. And, apart from some appalling things that happened, or maybe because of those things, I am, usually, content. I take things as they come. I am not a specialist.

I live a privileged life by comparison with most others and I have an enquiring mind. I am lucky. And I don't want to denigrate or diminish my fortune by not thinking and just accepting any old shit.

I am glad you are out there Baeoz. It's Friday, you'll be off to the local watering hole yes? Have one for me.
Cheers
V

446. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63945 by Veronique on August 16, 2007 at 11:53 pm

79. Comment #63893 by Nails

Thanks for your post. You are saying that, athough the RLHH is called by its somewhat ambiguous name, that it is staffed by ordinary, qualified medicos who also utilize a bit of a tickle with 'alternative medicine'?

That RLHH was upgraded because it is a regular hospital and was in need of refurbishment and upgraded medically oriented equipment? That the main reason it was selected for a refit is because the GOSH utilized some space in RLHH?

Perfectly reasonable I would say. So long as it is, first and foremost, a hospital rendering properly evidenced medical services to its clients. Do you have any idea what percentage of treatments offered by the RLHH fall into the category of 'alternative therapies'?

Thanks for adding to the info that was reported. Please let us know whatever else you can find out.
Cheers
V

447. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63941 by Veronique on August 16, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Wow, you guys, you certainly entertained yourselves on this thread:-)

Well, I have watched EOR in 5 videos on Google. RD asks questions and allows the answers to develop. Good watching and I hope the message reaches some people. We have all seen this sort of thing before. I now look really critically at what is presented in an attempt to understand how an average viewer might see it. A hopeless fancy of mine. Is there such an animal as an average viewer? Of course not.

In the 5th video, Richard's exchange with Steve Muller was delightful and it got me thinking.

All those things that happened in the 60s and 70s that changed the way people saw the world. (I know; Science was having a hey day too).

It was also the time of the 'peace' movement: a hostile war in Asia. It was the time of ganja, of LSD, peyote, magic mushrooms, of 'flower power', of Carlos Castenada, of westerners following the 'hippie trail' to India and being seduced by its mythology and its clever gurus. A pedestrian inter-net, if you like. Nothing screened out, just wide-eyed experience of anything that was available - just as Muller describes the inter-net of today or the printing press of the 16th century. I probably shouldn't compare these, but it was a very definite time in the western world.

The incredible idealism, not based on any evidence that people would ever stop fighting each other, but hope; that by a mighty effort of mankind, world peace would be achieved. It was in the 70s' that I became aware of astrology. That represents hope as well. A growing number of people were rebelling against 'orthodoxy'. "Don't trust anyone over thirty," Abby Hoffman railed.

It is so easy to make connections from that time to the present where the second generation and the beginnings of a third generation, have been seduced by anything that will give them hope. Most of the kids I know feel they are facing a very bleak future. Their parents have long been disappointed with the failure of the 'movement' and sought solace in the memories of their 'best' times in their youth. All the so-called 'new-age' (adultered by its insertion into western culture) mish-mash of therapies and beliefs, seem to have burgeoned since the 70s. "Evidence is devalued", says RD. Yes and to allow for the clinging to hope. Hope, that appears to rise eternally in the youthful (and not so youthful) heart.

Strange stuff. You realise that I am talking of what happened in my generation and what I saw around me. My sister came back from Asia and India, after some 3 years on the 'trail', a Vipassana Buddhist (a straight A science student I might add, before she switched to Psychology. She still was granted 1st Class Honours in Psych:-)). 30 years later, she is still trying to 'perfect' herself, in order to obviate the possibility of reincarnating as a worm:-).

I, like Sue Blackmore, wish RD luck. This kind of belief in things unseen, in potions, the waving of hands, the throw of cards is as hard to shift as religious belief. My 'Universe' friend wants me to put colloidal silver in my ears if I get a cold – I don't get colds!

Look at Darwin2, Biz, The Flea, Danielos and others who have visited us here from time to time? Do they shift? Not one inch. They cannot listen; they hear but nothing gets processed. This belief thingi is very complicated.

I like RD's allusion to a "fire-wall against scientific truth". I also liked that he distinguished between what we access on the inter-net and the impersonal algorithms that drive search engines that do not weed out "robust evidence from unsourced, uncorroborated assertion".

We, on the other hand, are far more simple. We need evidence. That's simple. They can imagine their unsubstantiated, subjective and anecdotal evidence and relegate reality to a back seat, while the drivers head towards the fire-wall. They crash but don't seem to burn. And reality stays in the back seat.

Ah well, don't stop RD. And neither will we.
Cheers
V

448. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63580 by Veronique on August 15, 2007 at 1:04 am

Paid your dues (ie. tithes) yet, Flea? If not, why not? Don't utilise this space without paying for the undoubted privilege of being able to post your interminable diatribes against those of us who prefer a reasonable and rational approach to the world as we know it.

Your fantastical and deluded approach to our habitat, guided by your fantastical and deluded (and, I should say, illiterate and uneducated - read noble savage) non-entities that constructed your doctrines that were written after your saviour's death (only accepted by the dominant Catholic Church council in Niceae and beyond, while rejecting most of the other writings of those who also believed they had the 'answer' to the extant (?) word of god).

I'm sorry, David, you are full of delusional wank. I will never change your 'mind' because it has been infected with the god inclusion.

Poor bugger, my heart actually goes out to people like you who live within this particular delusion. You will die like everyone else, that's life. Try not to infect too many people along the way.

Sorry
V
Why should I take you and your beliefs any more seriously than I would the childish belief in the Tooth Fairy, pray tell.

449. The Out Campaign

Comment #63574 by Veronique on August 14, 2007 at 11:49 pm

718. Comment #63135 by Dr Benway

A good and useful strategy.

Your point, I gather, is to get the religites to 'own' their holy books, their doctrine, their stance. Challenge their capacity to cherry pick, unless there is documented and open evidence of their organization's repudiation of these 'nasty' bits.

Religions with published doctrines are like ideologies or political platforms. People ought to feel responsible for their organization's stated values and objectives.

Would you mind if I use that as a blackboard quote? I think you may have given me another lease of life:-). I want to politicise the religites' held beliefs and hold them up to scrutiny. I have only been blackboard-posting quotes that are aimed at getting people to think. This is a good adjunct to my posting regime.

I am going photovoltaic. My installer is an atheist (another one!) and we have had a great discussion. He has just borrowed TGD from me. Yes!! I have only just met him; he loves the blackboard. I know there are so many more out there. It's just trying to get them to stand up and state it publicly. That's the hard part for me. I don't want to be over-bearing, but I want them to understand the invidious (and insidious) potential spread of this lunacy throughout my own country. It needs to be combated before it takes hold and it is too late to stem the tide.

That may sound a wee bit over the top. But I can see it happening in a covert, clandestine fashion. Under the radar if you will; by stealth; very clever and dishonest, because they don't publicly state their aims and goals.

Indonesia isn't a problem really. 100,000 people attending a non-event out of 222 million isn't a problem. Oz, for years has entertained this paranoia that we will be invaded by Indonesia which sits just above us, latitudinally, with its millions on a mass of islands. Look up wikipedia with its stats on Indonesia. It's a fairly decent entry.

I doubt that anyone is able to talk reason to any rabid religite or any other holder of an extreme ideological position. The numbers of people holding a rational and reasonable understanding of the world around us is the only way resistance to ideologies of any type will grow. It's slow, tedious, frustrating and won't happen in my lifetime. It doesn't mean I will just give up, not bother, get drunk and die from liver dysfunction. Onward and ever upward, I say:-).

Thanks Benway
V

450. Richard Dawkins and the New Age fakers

Comment #63335 by Veronique on August 14, 2007 at 1:22 am

Wow!! Madam Summer Seale

Yes, it's certainly scary stuff that you are saying. I am glad that you feel OK about saying it here, but I can't agree with you.

Of course it's a scary world. What you advocate makes it more scary and extended for a longer time.

There's a bloke, whose name I can't recall at the minute, who has written articles and, indeed, a book about what the Middle East does not need to solve its problems. He postulates that the US version of democracy is disadvantageous as it is thrust onto Iraq. He has very cogent arguments and he is an Iraqi.

What the US did by invading Iraq was to topple a dictator with whom, they had previously exchanged pleasantries and provided funding for his skirmishes with his neighbours. What the US failed (and continues to fail) to understand was that that dictator was an Iraqi and actually understood what his cobbled together peoples were about. That cobbling of 18 governates into a 'unified' sovereign country is just all of 80 years old. Hardly a well-established cobble. Its dictator, up until a year ago, well its passions read (sorry Shelley).

The Pandora's box that has been opened by the US' invasion of Iraq and their killing of Saddam, has unleashed the sort of religious fundamentalism that is supported by the US President and his minder (I notice that Karl Rove resigned, amid Bush's tears, today). Iraqi fundamentalists and protestant Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Zionist, Hindu and Islamic fundamentalists are just the other faces of Janus. I think I have noted before that the US is so sequestered and fed on a pap of reality TV shows and governmentally compliant news media as to be as dumbed down as a community can get. I know you will not like this assessment; sorry, I see the US populace as mainly underdone teenagers (my nephew excepted:-)).

Anyway, my non-remembered author, argues a very good case for not attempting to impose a system of government on disparate groups of people that have only just subliminally submerged their differences to be able to live for the benefit of their cobbled together country.

He asks rather, 'what makes a terrorist?' He postulates that it arises from several hundred years of abuse, colonialism, resource theft, slavery, economic sanctions and other, equally abhorrent interferences in their lives.

That I understand. While I may detest the Catholic Church (and I do) and what it seeks to impose on people, I could never, for any reason, except self (note well: I say self, not an ideological gun-toting stance) protection, even consider killing anyone. Even then I don't know that I could succeed. I certainly wouldn't initiate a conflict which is what the US did in order to continue and legislate resource theft from a country it doesn't understand but has so much oil that is currently the subject of the Oil Laws

I am somewhat appalled by your comments – I cannot see how such viciously stated goals will help anything.

Yes, you are a bitch. Maybe some contemplation is in order. Do I want to win you over to atheism? No, not at all. I would like you to think about what you are saying and displaying as your raison detre for such vitriol.

It is counter productive and does not do you credit.

Not sure that I can say Cheers
V