401. Fleabytes

Comment #135589 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 5:50 am

Artful Dodger: Paula, I have reread the letter. Show me one example of anything objectionable in either the content or the delivery!

OK, here's one, though there are several.

: I understand that for many years you saw no difficulty in attending a church whose denomination belonged to the 'apostate World Council of Churches'; it is therefore hardly appropriate for you as an incomer into the Free Church to complain of a "motley crew".

Am I saying that DR shouldn't argue his case? No, I am not. I am pointing out that his style of arguing is unnecessarily abrasive, aggressive and unhelpful. This is not how conflicts get resolved. In this whole letter, there is no attempt at a conciliatory tone, no attempt to find any common ground before dealing with the points on which they differ. You refer to the way people interact on this site - something we do in our free time, when we're letting our hair down. David has written this letter in his professional capacity as a preacher and as an editor. I can think of few other professional contexts where such a style would be considered acceptable.

Like him I am really saddened by how some thoughtful Christians with a heart for God are written off as heretics in pharasaical fashion because they don't slot into the reformed or evangelical mould.

Then read it AGAIN: it is David who makes the accusation of heresy.

From everything I've seen of it, the Free Church is a particularly judgemental, finger-wagging church that takes upon itself the right to upbraid people it doesn't approve of in the strongest possible terms - publicly, quite often. Free Churchers I have known have quoted biblical chapter and verse in support of this approach. In no other sphere of activity would such behaviour be tolerated. There are better, more effective, less aggressive, less bullying, kinder ways of resolving differences. Ironic, isn't it, that it should be the secular workplace that leads the church in this respect.

402. Fleabytes

Comment #135559 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 5:05 am

Artful Dodger: In the first place these two letters are out of place on a thread dealing with Robertson's response to Richard Dawkins, and their having been posted here is clear evidence that the responses to him have become pure ad hominem attacks.

How so? How is simply quoting someone's own words an ad hominem attack? Or perhaps you see something in his words that reflects badly on him?

Secondly, I am not sure that it is ethical to lift correspondence from another site as fuel for this very different fire

But presumably you think it was alright for David to take comments from this website and quote them in his book in order to deride atheists? Everything quoted here is in the public domain and available for download as a pdf from the Free Church website (which, by the way, is why he was entitled to take quotes from here for his book too.)

Thirdly, if Robertson's letter is read objectively one cannot fail to be impressed, not by how he leaps for the jugular, but by how fair-minded and irenic the man is. The problem is that even a normally cool head like Paula's has become incapable of reading anything the man says objectively

Interesting. Are you sure of your own objectivity here? Fair-minded? Irenic!! Maybe you should read it again. Actually, maybe you should read what I wrote about it again too: I said I'd found it very revealing; and also that I thought it was a point in David's favour that he was standing up to even more abhorrent strands of thought in his church - what's not objective about that? Although I didn't spell it out, I was also interested in the fact that he's clearly battling on other fronts than just ours. Actually, I admire people who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them OR their tactics. As you know, I disagree with David's beliefs profoundly, and I find his manner of defending them intolerable - what interests me about the exchange I've reproduced here is that he's equally aggressive with fellow-Christians. I find that an interesting insight.

403. Fleabytes

Comment #135536 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 4:34 am

From the same edition of the Free Church magazine: David's article about The God Delusion and the "new atheists":

The Dark Night of the Soul and the Sweet Light of the Gospel
In November 2006, I walked into our local Waterstone's and noticed to my astonishment that the number one book was entitled The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. I bought the book and began to read it with great interest. It astonished, infuriated, depressed and inspired me. As a result I wrote an open letter to Richard Dawkins on the Free Church website, which was subsequently posted on the Dawkins website, and resulted in an extraordinary response. These letters continued, and in March 2007 a book of them, The Dawkins Letters, was published. Since then my life has been hectic - dozens of e-mails and letters, opportunities to hold meetings in bookstores, universities and churches, and various other 'media' opportunities. All of this was unexpected, but what has been most unexpected is the spiritual aspect of it all. It is this I want to reflect on, not least because it may reflect and be of benefit to others who have gone through similar spiritual struggles.

The Dark Night of the Soul
At first the level of abuse from the followers of Richard Dawkins was surprising and somewhat amusing. To read that I was a 'moronic retard with the intellectual ability of roadkill' was hilarious. And years of training on the Free Church Message board certainly prepared me! Sometimes, however, the constant vitriol (and especially the polite kind) did hit home and become overwhelming. I remember one night waking up with my mind in turmoil and being unable to go
back to sleep �quot; all the accusations, bitterness and demands were running round in my head. It was only when I sat and read the word of God that peace was restored. It continues to amaze me how relevant the Bible, and especially the Psalms, are in the midst of spiritual battle.

An additional discouragement was the reaction of 'the Church'. Over the past few months I have come to realise how the Christian church in Britain is often weak, inwardlooking, cynical, self-obsessed and generally copies the ways of the world. We rarely engage with the world (being far too concerned with our own wee corner and our share of the Christian market) and when we do, although there are some fantastic exceptions, we do so in a way which somehow ends up being about ourselves rather than Jesus. But the really depressing thing for me was how few Christian leaders have seen the tremendous opportunity that Richard Dawkins has given us to present the Gospel. I have been puzzled that while the book has been a bestseller and sold in secular outlets about a subject that is regularly in the news, it has almost completely been ignored in the Christian media.

However, the darkness, discouragement and depression really began to hit home when the bleak, dark and dreary world of atheism began to get under my skin. Knowing beauty does not mean that you are not upset when you see ugliness �quot; indeed it can make the experience all the more depressing. This feeling of discouragement, darkness and depression really hit home one Saturday afternoon at Dens Park, the home of Dundee FC. I was enjoying the game when the thought hit me, what would it be like if the atheist worldview was true? The thought of a life without Christ was for me an overwhelming one. It shattered me. Dawkins and the New Atheists do their best to describe their view as beautiful, poetic and meaningful. It is nothing of the sort. It is a black hole which leads to the pit of despair and meaningless[ness]. And I have looked deep into that pit.

The Sweet Light of the Gospel
However, sometimes experiencing the darkness only helps you to appreciate the light all the more. I am thankful that as each of the discouragements hit me, so also the Lord has sent shafts of light into the darkness, sometimes overwhelming in their sweetness and the joy they bring. I have been enormously encouraged by what many of us would take as normal; I have learned to appreciate all the more music, food, the beauty of creation, and, above all, my family. I am very thankful that I belong to a Christian family and that my wife and children are believers. I am thankful for every moment of life; in all of its wonderful detail.

In addition to this, while I have been discouraged by much of the culture and inward-lookingness of the Church and Christian networks, the response from many ordinary Christians has been fantastic. On average I get one letter or e-mail per day from a Christian who has been encouraged, entertained and enthused by the book. What is even better is the number of non-Christians who have written, some of whom have been challenged and are seeking God.

The fellowship of the saints has also been sweet. Many times I have been shattered, discouraged and disorientated only to be reorientated by worshipping together with the people of God. Prayer meetings, home groups, and Sunday worship
have all been incredibly real over this period of time. The consciousness of the presence of God is palpable.

And that leads to the greatest sweetness of all; the glorious light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I will leave the last word with the apostle Paul, who describes my experience over these past few months perfectly: The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness', made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
(2 Corinthians 4:4-6).
The Editor

Can't stop to write any more now. My atheist pit of despair and meaninglessness calls!

404. Fleabytes

Comment #135529 by Paula Kirby on February 29, 2008 at 4:19 am

At the risk of bringing this thread back to something a little more closely connected with its subject, I thought this exchange in the November edition of the Free Church of Scotland's official monthly magazine might be of interest. The letter to which David Robertson is responding is a perfect illustration of certain attitudes within the FCoS - and will bring joy to the heart of anyone who has been seeking confirmation that the FCoS requires ordinands to declare the Pope to be the antichrist - but, to be fair to David, he's clearly trying to counter these attitudes. The way he does so is interesting, though: the lunge for the throat will seem familiar, I think.

The exchange is rather long, I'm afraid, but I do think it's so revealing that it's worth reading. First, the letter TO David:

As I read through the September issue of the Monthly Record (MR) I became more and more convinced that my previous concerns for the Free Church were well founded.

To begin with, the new Editor tells us that the magazine is not only a Free Church publication but is for everyone - no doubt Free Church (FC) distinctives will have to be watered down so as not to offend non-Presbyterians, unbelievers etc.

As the writer to the Hebrews said, 'Time would fail me' to go into everything that stirs up questions even in this one issue of the MR. The Editor speaks glowingly of a book by John Stott, thereby causing others to believe that Stott is a reliable guide in Christian matters, when in fact he is a heretic, believing in Pre-Adamites, no Hell, no Tree or Serpent in Eden, Annihilationism etc.

Let's go on to the Ordination at Badenoch (p. 6). Here we find the reporter, Rev John Ross, complaining about the questions put to the Minister at his ordination, when he was asked to confirm that he did not hold to any false doctrines, such as Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Erastian and others (true, most of those present couldn't tell an Armenian from an Arminian, and need to be taught).

Mr Ross's main concern was that a Roman Catholic 'priest' was present and might have been offended. Since when did we have to keep quiet about our beliefs lest we offend someone from an unbiblical "church" ? - a church which, according to our Confession of Faith, is headed up by the Antichrist. We certainly didn't learn this from Knox or Calvin or Luther, nor indeed from Christ or Paul or Elijah.

We'll pass over the nonsense written about Harry Potter - surely something quite out of place in a church magazine, to say the least.

Let's move on to an item in the Prayer Diary, where we find that the church in Cumbernauld is joining with 12 other churches in a mission. One has to ask how many of these churches are affiliated to the apostate World Council of Churches, the Ecumenical Movement. How many of them hold to teachings that are directly contrary to FC beliefs? How many of these denominations have women in the ministry or eldership, contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture? How can a Free Church join with such a motley crew - what will be their message? 'Time would fail me.'

What about the July/August issue of the MR? Change, change, change, with none of its advocates brave enough to say exactly what they want changed. To me these things are all signs of a church that has lost its way. We're going from Disruption to Disaster-- led by the Light Brigade-- only this time it's not "onward and onward", it's downward and downward. A long time ago Francis Schaeffer said something like this: When a church splits, those on the right go further right and those on the left go further left. How right he was. The original Light Brigade charged on to disaster - let's not follow today's version.
S

And David's reply:

Dear S,

Like you, I am at a loss for words, concerning your extraordinary letter. But since you had the courtesy to write and, more importantly, because it is my duty as a shepherd of God's flock and a teacher of his word to combat heresy, I feel obliged to respond.

Your letter saddened me in many ways. The first problem is its deeply unbiblical sectarian spirit. We are more than happy to have non-Presbyterians and unbelievers reading The Monthly Record. And we have no intention of producing a magazine whose raison d'etre is to magnify 'Free Church distinctives'. Rather, we follow the motto of our founding father, Thomas Chalmers - 'who cares for the Free Church compared with the Christian good of Scotland?'.

Your misuse of Scripture is interesting. The writer to the Hebrews spoke of 'time failing' him because of his desire to talk about the heroes of the faith and their example. You misappropriate his words to attack, nitpick and condemn Christian brothers and sisters. Ironically, as your letter arrived I had just had a conversation with the Rev Murdo Macleod (Dunvegan, retired) who told me of John Stott's final sermon at Keswick. The 87-year-old John Stott is like one of the heroes of Hebrews 11; he is a brother to be much admired.

How ironic that you join with liberals in condemning this godly and gracious man. As Rev John Reese wrote in the Church Times, 'How very sad and perhaps symptomatic of disease in the Church were the three letters critical of Dr Stott's address to the Keswick Convention. A great servant of the Church, making his last public appearance, did not deserve to be treated with lofty disdain by those who purport to agree with him that we should be more Christlike'.

Although I do not agree with John Stott on everything, he deserves to be honoured as one of the great servants of Christ in the 20th century, not shamefully dismissed in such a contemptous and disrespectful manner.

I do not have time to address your criticisms of the Moderator, John Ross, which were ill considered and inappropriate. And where better to discuss the most popular book in Britain this year, than a Christian magazine?

As regards the mission in Cumbernauld, I spoke to the minister and he assured me that Cumbernauld Free Church did not engage in any apostate worship or share in evangelism with any church that does not teach the Gospel.

I understand that for many years you saw no difficulty in attending a church whose denomination belonged to the 'apostate World Council of Churches'; it is therefore hardly appropriate for you as an incomer into the Free Church to complain of a "motley crew".

The reason that the Assembly spoke of change is because we are a Reformed Church, which means we are semper reformanda, always reforming. I hope we will never be so arrogant as to think that we have arrived and have no need for change.

And your accusation that the Free Church is being led by 'the Light Brigade' is unworthy. The Hebrew word for glory carries comes from the root meaning of 'heavy'. The Free Church today is concerned for the Glory of God. Although we often fail miserably, we want to live for His glory, proclaim His glory and glorify His Name, not ours. Ironically, in complaining about the 'charge of the Light Brigade' in the language and spirit of your letter, you have betrayed a flippancy, irreverence, and contempt which is the very opposite of that weightiness of the Glory of God. It is for that reason that such letters in the future will only rarely be published. Whilst we are happy to accept criticism and want the Record to be a forum for discussion, we are not prepared to allow our magazine to be used by those who trivialise the Gospel in the name of God.
Yours in Christ,
David

Both letters just brimming over with Christian charity and magnaminity, as you can see! I'd be interested to hear what other people make of them.

405. Fleabytes

Comment #134980 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Quetz and Richard M: Yes! And I think this is an area where we atheists could and should be much more robust in our argumentation. The David Robertsons of this world would like to make out that it's atheists who pose the greatest threat to the safety and well-being of other humans; that atheism is an inherently anti-humanitarian proposition; that compassion for our fellow humans can ONLY come from God. But we are not the ones claiming that humans are the authors of their own suffering, or that humans are sinful, loathsome, fallen or "polluted". We are not the ones who view ourselves and our fellow humans with revulsion and who, instead of seeing rounded, fallible, lovable beings, simply see a mass of sinfulness. The Christian view of humans propounded by David Robertson is both vile and dangerous. We have nothing whatsoever to be defensive about on this front.

406. Fleabytes

Comment #134959 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 12:00 pm

ScotishGeologist: I couldn't agree more. Atheist explanations of suffering are not only more in line with reality, they are also more moral in that they don't attempt to offer justifications where there are none, and they don't add to the suffering by suggesting that the sufferer was somehow to blame for it.

The idea of humans being polluted is just disgusting. The loathing and self-loathing expressed in this notion are terribly sad, but also rather frightening. And to think that Robertson rails against Dawkins for claiming that the universe is indifferent! He rejects it because it's too bleak, too comfortless, too "depressing". Yet he offers the pollutedness of humanity as the antidote. It's desperate, it really is. I pity any poor, vulnerable, self-doubting person who gets caught up in this foul philosophy.

407. Fleabytes

Comment #134950 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 11:23 am

Richard Morgan: One's own death, or the death of a loved one? I, personally have not yet learnt how to face up to the death of a child with equanimity. Many of my religious friends, however, have been able to achieve that. I would appreciate your input on that one.

That's a fair point, Richard. I meant one's own death. I think you're absolutely right in suggesting that the death of people we love is even harder to deal with. And I can understand why some people derive comfort from the belief that they'll be reunited in an after-life.

However, the death that knocked me hardest occurred whilst I was still a Christian - and I was conscious even at the time that my then-religion wasn't anywhere close to being up to the task of comforting me. It simply didn't work. In fact, it felt utterly irrelevant in the face of my grief. That wasn't the end of my faith - that didn't happen until a few years later. But it was certainly one of the early nails in its coffin. (Oops. Just re-read this and noticed the unintentional almost-pun at the end.)

408. Fleabytes

Comment #134847 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 9:03 am

Clearthinker: I own you an apology. Your article is on the front page. I had been away from this site for so long that I did not realise that this was now how it worked. I was wrong. Apologies.

Thank you, David. Apology accepted.

Anyway how are the plans going for Richards appearance at UHI?

Very well. But UHI aren't announcing it officially until next week, so I won't go into detail about it until after that.

Sorry to hear that he refused to debate (or was that just a vicious rumour?)

That is indeed a vicious rumour. It was UHI (that's University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute - for anyone who is not in Scotland and doesn't know) who decided that they didn't want a debate format.

but glad to hear that at least UHI have the fairness to ask John Lennox to give a lecture.

Is it John Lennox? I'd heard they were trying for Alister McGrath. In either case, UHI were clear from the start that they would want to hold a balancing event later in the year.

When will that be? October? Are you organising both?

So far as I am aware, UHI were hoping for some time in the autumn but I don't know what exact date they have in mind. I am not employed by UHI and I'm not organising either event although I have been involved in the arrangements for the first one.

Will people be allowed to ask questions at the Dawkins lecture or will they have to submit their questions through you?

Yes, of course they'll be able to ask questions - whyever not? The whole of the second hour has been set aside for this purpose. And no, questions will not need to be submitted in advance.

409. Fleabytes

Comment #134780 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 7:51 am

scottishgeologist: And the way this string of comments is going (up to Page 30 now) it could well be the longest thread ever as it doesnt seem to be showing any signs of slowing down.

Hmmm. Not so sure about that. I think we'd need Dianelos or Mark Taunton to join in before we could be confident of that!

410. Fleabytes

Comment #134776 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 7:42 am

Paul Creber: Would someone please clarify something for me? Both Richard Dawkins and David Robertson appear to agree that Paula's excellent review is no longer on the "front page" of this site.
Yet as far as I can see, it has always been on the front page, in the "Latest News" section.

You're quite right, Paul, this is a complete non-issue. To say that Fleabytes is "no longer" on the front page is misleading. It's precisely where it's always been, on the "Latest News" thread, where, as with any other article, it is slowly heading down the list as newer items come in.

The "Featured" thread tends to be for items by or directly about Richard Dawkins himself, or the other "horsemen". There is therefore absolutely no reason why Fleabytes would ever have been featured there. David Robertson was just doing what he does best: twisting and distorting in the hopes of sowing some seeds of doubt. Such a sweet soul.

EDIT: Oops, sorry, I see that several people got there before me.

411. Fleabytes

Comment #134724 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 6:22 am

"Clearthinker": You can believe that if you want (and then ask ' well why was I asked to write it?) or you can guess, as I am, that RD is running scared of a book which exposes his book for the fallacy that it is. Certainly they are not ashamed of your work. But they are scared and could not cope with the possibility that once again attention would be brought to mine.

An interesting example of your "clear thinking" here, David. RD.net are (according to you) scared of your book and terrified of drawing attention to it. Consequently, the last thing they want is for people to be reminded about it at all.

So what do they do? They request a review of it ... which turns out to be extremely long and detailed ... which states that yours puts up the best fight of all the four books reviewed ... which they then put on their website ... and which subsequently attracts over 1400 comments (so presumably even more "views") ... AND they lift the ban on you so that you can defend it against the comments I have made.

It would take Wee Flea logic to interpret this as quaking in their boots, but then, that's the only logic (sic) you seem to have access to. Fact is, David, you are determined to distort everything to force it to fit in with your view of the matter, no matter how devious or transparently dishonest you have to be in the process. Please don't think for one moment that anyone is fooled by your antics.

412. Fleabytes

Comment #134710 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 6:04 am

Richard Morgan
Interesting post, but I've always thought NLP was terribly overrated, and that it's no coincidence that most of its practitioners seem also to be followers of one kind of woo-woo or another.

As I understand your open letter, it all boils down to the fact that theists and atheists view the world differently and achieve their "wow!" moments in different ways. I certainly agree with that.

Are you suggesting, though, that this makes discussion between the two groups pointless? If so, I wouldn't agree.

For one thing, as Lorien has pointed out, people do move between the two groups. There is not, therefore, any inevitability about this.

For another, the religious lobby are not content to accept that the non-religious simply view the world differently, and they continue to devote vast amounts of time and other resources to the aim of converting us and, of course, to imposing their worldview on governments, policy-makers, educators and children. For as long as this is the case, we cannot just sit back and say, "Oh, they just see the world differently from us - but we can live with that."

And for another - and I realise that I'm leaving myself open to accusations of circularity here! - our worldview is, quite simply, more reasonable than theirs! As for the emotional satisfaction that some people derive from their religion, I have long felt that some religious people should be encouraged to read Unweaving the Rainbow rather than (or in addition to, at least) The God Delusion. Religion is NOT the sole source of joy, delight, poetry or awe! Nor is life only made meaningful by an entirely unsubstantiated belief in its continuing eternally after our physical death. Nor is morality only assured through the existence of a supernatural playground monitor. These are points that deserve to be made - let the fleas infest us as they will.

On one point I do agree: there's little point banging on about the greater rationality of our position when they do not value rationality the way we do. You don't refer to this, but I think there's little point, either, in pointing out the inconsistencies of their religious dogmas - there are undoubtedly some Christians for whom the dogma really matters, but I remain convinced that most Christians believe because it is COMFORTING to believe; because they like the idea of being reunited with their loved ones after death; because they like the idea of never really dying; and because they like the idea of having a big daddy looking out for them and making sure that, somehow, there'll be a happy ending, no matter how tough things may currently seem.

From this perspective I do think it's important that, alongside the rational and intellectual arguments, we give some thought to how we can persuade people that, actually, life without religion ISN'T horribly scary and DOESN'T feel depressingly meaningless, and that death, whilst sad, can be faced up to with something approaching equanimity.

So I do accept that an intellectual "cure" is unlikely to be effective against an emotional "disease". But how do you think we should proceed instead?

413. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #134673 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 5:00 am

Goldy: Cacti, surely?

No, it's alright, we're spoilt for choice when it comes to plurals for cactus: take your pick from "cacti", "cactuses" or just plain "cactus".

414. Fleabytes

Comment #134641 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 4:09 am

Rover: I think people are forgetting one minor detail...the fact that Dawkins has ALREADY addressed all of this in his book! LOL!

You mean the confusion in the Christian approaches to hell? I'm not sure he has. He certainly wrote about the changing moral zeitgeist, and there's little doubt that this has also affected the way many Christians react to the concept of hell - but I'm not sure he went into a lot of detail about the absurdity of the concept in the first place.

Besides, TGD is such a complete refutation of religion from so many angles that there'll be precious little left to discuss on this website if we avoid all the topics Richard has already covered!

415. Fleabytes

Comment #134624 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 3:50 am

doesn't the bible say that the children should not suffer for the sins of the father

Deut. 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...

So you should be ok provided everyone in your family has been good since your great-great grandparents' day.

416. Fleabytes

Comment #134618 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 3:44 am

NMcC: I don't think this separation from God thing rather than fire and brimstone as a description of hell is just a 'Liberal' stance.

That's true too. The real liberals would say there's no hell at all and everyone ends up in heaven. I do hope Jesus negotiated a good redundancy package.

417. Fleabytes

Comment #134600 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 3:17 am

Quetz: What is the difference between that and the way I am now?

I think the theory is that God isn't actually absent from your life at present, even though you don't believe in him. His guiding hand is still in control, his spirit is still around, and there's still the chance that you will repent of your evil ways and accept him. Whereas in hell he'll be really, truly absent, and this will mean that all kinds of horrible things will happen there: cold, dark, loneliness, fear, disease - you know, all those things that don't happen on Earth. Oh no, wait ...

418. Fleabytes

Comment #134593 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 3:07 am

As I understand it, we're being saved from the "eternal separation from God".

Yes, agreed. Now, why might that happen again? Oh yes, it's because even the kindest, most compassionate, most gentle humans are fundamentally evil. And why is that again? Oh yes, because a perfect God created us so imperfectly that Eve couldn't resist a nice piece of fruit when it was offered to her by a talking snake. OK, that's all making perfect sense now. Thanks! :-)

419. Fleabytes

Comment #134574 by Paula Kirby on February 28, 2008 at 2:30 am

The fundies' belief in a literal hell is ludicrous, abhorrent and obscene, of course, but I suppose you could argue that it's consistent with biblical teaching, at least.

What interests me about the liberals' view that hell is just a metaphorical concept is that the whole of Christian theology collapses as a result. What exactly is the Saviour Jesus supposed to be saving us from, if there's no hell?

I also find the claim that Jesus descended into hell after the crucifixion utterly, utterly bizarre. Hell is meant to be the place where God is absent, n'est-ce pas? And Jesus is meant to be 100% God as well as 100% human, n'est-ce pas? So how can God ever be where God is absent? Wouldn't hell by Christianity's own definition cease to be hell the moment Jesus put in an appearance there?

420. Fleabytes

Comment #133935 by Paula Kirby on February 27, 2008 at 3:23 am

Steve Zara: Perhaps I should, but I don't. I find such behaviour appalling. If nothing else, it is such bad manners.

What I meant is that it's so self-defeating. What I laugh at is the futility of it, the transparency of it, the ignorance of it. These are the tactics of the gutter, deployed with an attempted air of moral superiority. My laughter is entirely of the mocking variety.

421. Fleabytes

Comment #133917 by Paula Kirby on February 27, 2008 at 3:02 am

Steve Zara: But the snide provocation shown here by Robertson is unacceptable

No, really, you've got to laugh. First of all he tried to undermine the article by insinuating that it had been "officially sanctioned" by RD.net; then, when that didn't work, he tried to do it by insinuating that RD.net was ashamed of it!

The tactics are so transparent, so utterly about simply slinging whatever mud he happens to have invented at the time, even if the new mud directly contradicts the mud he attempted to sling earlier - surely, deep-down, not even Robertson himself can have failed to see how deeply odious his behaviour is. Certainly no one else has.

422. Fleabytes

Comment #133581 by Paula Kirby on February 26, 2008 at 11:51 am

Quetzalcoatl: I think it is fair to say that the site revolves around him, as so many other things apparently do.

Yes. No wonder some of the theists say it's become a bit of a personality cult ...

423. Fleabytes

Comment #133579 by Paula Kirby on February 26, 2008 at 11:46 am

Diacanu: No more from Clearthinker?

I believe he told us he was off to do Very Important Things with Very Important People in Very Important Places. This is because he is a Very Important Person with a Very Important Mission and it is Very Important that he saves the world from the evils of atheism. Really, we should feel honoured that he can spare us the time to talk to us at all.

EDIT. Gasp. Just had a thought. Wasn't the Second Coming due by now? Are you thinking what I'm thinking ...?

424. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133233 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Donnie Vandenbos: Kudos to Steve and Paula for having the stomach to work through a Vox Day book.

No, not to me. I haven't read it. I'm right out of stomach for fleas just now.

425. Fleabytes

Comment #133230 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 11:27 pm

RickM: One in four adults ages 18 to 29 claim no affiliation with a religious institution.

You mean three in four do? How depressing. My guess is that it would be about the other way round in the UK.

426. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132988 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Steve Zara: I know Paula will think I am being cruel to people, but I have found it can be worth reading a "Flea" book. It is the most convincing way to show that there really isn't another side to the issue. The God Delusion is a beautifully written and lucid book. Reading a Flea book makes this even more apparent.

No, I agree with you, actually, Steve. I think atheists should read at least one or two of the flea books, same as they should be familiar with at least the key passages in the bible. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect us to read flea after flea after flea after flea in the hopes that ONE of them will eventually say something really earth-shattering. There comes a point where it's simply no longer reasonable to ask us to keep giving the fleas the benefit of the doubt.

Add to that the fact that many of us have been believers ourselves and are already familiar with the arguments that believers use ... and really, we simply do have better things to do with our time.

427. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132937 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 12:24 pm

WyattRoberts: Many of the posters here sound like they are judging these books *without* examining whatever evidence (if any) they claim to present. Isn't that exactly the opposite of what atheists are supposed to be about -- examining the evidence?

I know what you mean, Wyatt. But how many times do you need to be electrocuted before you have enough evidence that unplugging the kettle with wet hands is not a good idea?

It's not as if any of the ever-increasing number of fleas has ever taken us by surprise, other than by the degree of venom and falsehood they are prepared to deploy.

Are we to go on and on and on and on reading Christian apologetics in the (almost certainly vain) hope that ONE of them will eventually come up with an argument we haven't heard before and that really does constitute an argument for belief? Or are we to accept that life is short and that these silly books just aren't worth wasting too much of it on? I write as someone who knows!

Just think: the 2 days it takes you to read this flea book are 2 days that you can't spend enjoying the company of people you love, or learning about things that really matter. They are two days which will never come again. Do you really want to spend them reading yet another tedious claim that atheism must lead to totalitarianism? Do you really have nothing better to do with that precious time?

You'll know just as soon as a Christian writer comes up with something strange or startling, because all the other Christians will start denouncing him very loudly indeed. That will be your clue. Until then, really, you'd be better off spending the time fixing that lopsided shelf you've been meaning to do for ages.

428. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132875 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 10:59 am

In The Delusion of Disbelief, former Time senior correspondent and bestselling author David Aikman offers an articulate, reasoned response to four writers at the forefront of todays anti-faith movement: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.

Well, there's a first time for everything ...

429. Fleabytes

Comment #132733 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 7:07 am

Steve Zara: Perhaps a non-fundamentalist atheist does not believe that every word in TGD is literally true, and that we have to subject to some of the text to interpretation based on the current moral zeitgeist.

Shame on you, Steve. I hope you've washed your mouth out thoroughly after uttering such heresy.

430. Fleabytes

Comment #132725 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 6:58 am

SRWB: part of the reason is because "fundamentalist" has taken on a negative connotation

Yes, I think that's a good point: he's trying to imply that we're "militant", "aggressive" and all the rest. You'd find that his definition of "fundamentalist" would change if he was asked to describe what it meant in his own case: then it would no doubt lose all its militant, aggressive overtones and become simply someone who has a literal belief in the teachings of his religion.

THIS definition becomes completely meaningless when applied to atheists. Quite apart from the fact that atheism isn't a religion (sigh), it simply doesn't make sense. An atheist, after all, is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. Are we to say that a "fundamentalist atheist" is someone who, er, literally doesn't believe in a god or gods? What exactly is the difference?

What would a non-fundamentalist atheist look like in this case? "No, I definitely don't believe in a god or gods, but only in a metaphorical sense"?

431. Fleabytes

Comment #132700 by Paula Kirby on February 25, 2008 at 6:19 am

ScottishGeologist: So why do people like DR see the word fundamentalist in peremptory terms. Preusmably he sticks to the fundamentals of the christian faith, the key tenets, the uncompromisable doctrines that define calvinistic orthodoxy. It should be a badge of honour, to be a fundy!

I suspect that David Robertson is perfectly happy to think of himself as a fundamentalist Christian. His intention in using the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" is simply to rile us by the implication that atheism is just another form of religion and that therefore the word "fundamentalist" can be legitimately applied to it. He's wrong on both counts, of course, but when has that ever stopped him?

432. Fleabytes

Comment #132279 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm

According to Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Since Krisking has never been known to actually MAKE an argument or factual claim on this website, I don't think the term can possibly apply in this case.

433. Fleabytes

Comment #132213 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Richard Morgan: firing a 100°C jet out of its backside...

To be fair, that wasn't one of mine. I was quoting one of Andrew Wilson's footnotes.

Thanks for the composition, by the way!

Best wishes from your friendly atheist rottweiler

434. Fleabytes

Comment #132209 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 1:15 pm

601: So you MUST write a book

You're all being very nice to me!

As it happens, I am seriously thinking of trying to write a book, one that deals with the process of losing religious belief and becoming atheist. I don't think I shall be able to start "proper" work on it until later in the year, but it's not too soon to be starting to gather people's stories.

The book will only work if I can gather together enough deconversion stories - not just looking at the intellectual issues that may have prompted deconversion, but also what the process actually felt like; how friends and family reacted; what was difficult about it, what was easy; and what difference it has made to the way people live their lives now - how they now deal with the things that might once have led them to pray, for instance; what things give them hope; how they cope with the knowledge of their mortality etc etc etc. It doesn't all have to be positive, either - I'd also be interested to hear about aspects of life that are harder without religious belief. It's the full, rounded, human experience of learning to live without faith that I'm looking for.

And where better to find my case studies than on this website? I'm sure there must be lots of people here who have been through this process and have a story to tell. If so, and if you'd be willing to share it, I'd really love to hear from you. By PM would probably be best. If you just let me know you'd be willing to take part at this stage, I'll get back to you with some questions just to get the process started.

Thanks for all the encouragement!

435. Fleabytes

Comment #132167 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 11:44 am

Steve Zara: Saying "but it's supernatural" is just the same as saying "I am allowed to make anything up, and I am not going to allow you to argue back".

Asolutely. Furthermore, it's an utterly transparent attempt to invent evidence to support the belief, rather than to form the belief on the basis of the evidence.

The only evidence (sic) for the existence of a supernatural, simple God who is capable of producing great complexity is that, er, the bible stories REQUIRE such a being to exist. Ergo, he exists.

436. Fleabytes

Comment #132130 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 9:16 am

Mike: When i was a prof in weimar there was a fascist rally.
The students organised themselves and when the fascists walked down a particular street, the students hung speakers outside the windows and played brazilian samba music.

Oh, that's inspired. I wish I'd been there!

437. Fleabytes

Comment #132128 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 9:12 am

mikejswalker: Does anyone believe [David Robertson] does not sincerely believe what he says he does?

I'm convinced that he absolutely believes what he says he believes. I don't doubt it for a moment. This is one of the reasons why I decided that it should be his book, rather than the others, that I should deal with in detail. I think he absolutely believes that the whole of "creation" is the battlefield between God and Satan, good and evil, and that Jesus is the only solution to that battle so far as humans are concerned. I find that an utterly bizarre belief, and like most other contributors here I see that it has desperate consequences for the way he views life and the way he interacts with other people (particularly those who don't share his beliefs), but I have no doubt whatsover that he holds these beliefs with total sincerity.

Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, on the other hand ...

438. Fleabytes

Comment #132110 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 7:35 am

Robertson, Cornwell and McGrath: An Unholy Fleasome

439. Fleabytes

Comment #132105 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 7:28 am

Peacebeuponme: Muddled by McGrath : Unclarity, Obfuscation and the Meaninglessness of Theology.

Ooh, I like that! It definitely has potential ...

440. Fleabytes

Comment #132098 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 7:02 am

Peacebeuponme: She hasn't written a book rebutting them, and with the authors' names in the title, which is what Richard was referring to when he criticised McGrath.

Hmmmm, tempting though. How about this as the title if I did:

Letters from McGrath's Angel: Godawful Delusions of a Former Atheist

Other suggestions welcome!

441. Fleabytes

Comment #132091 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 6:32 am

Logicel: Invite also McGrath

Well, I expect he's still got this site listed as one of his "Favourites" from when he used to be an atheist.

442. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132062 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 4:40 am

http://www.esnips.com/web/Hitchindebate

What a talented chap you are, Richard Morgan! How about having a go at a debate with Alister McGrath next? (Should be fairly straightforward - not too many notes required.)

443. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132045 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 2:29 am

This one, like the other one, does indeed open a page. But what do I THEN have to click in order to play the mp3? It certainly doesn't spontaneously start playing, and there is no obvious clue as to what has to be clicked on that page.

The section below the bit with Richard M's photograph is called "Files". If you click on "N°1 Fingerprints - past time.mp3", that will take you through to another page which shows the normal YouTube-type controls for playing/pausing the file. (First image on the page below the advert at the top.) Hope that works for you.

444. My Argument With God

Comment #132031 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 1:07 am

Steve Zara: You might as well believe in free will, as if there is free will, you have the choice to do so, and if there isn't free will, it doesn't matter anyway.

Zara's Wager? ;-)

445. Fleabytes

Comment #132030 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 1:04 am

Rick M: Disingenuous, distorted, ignorant babble. Incredible. I would love to see Prof. D. debate this twit

I think your own post has identified just about all the reasons why Richard will NEVER bother to debate David Robertson!

446. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #132028 by Paula Kirby on February 24, 2008 at 12:52 am

Ian Bamlett: Or why not just to speak to any honest cop who will tell you how much 'faith' they put in an eyewitness unless it is corroborated with other evidence.

Quote from a British newspaper in the early 1980s (can't remember which one now - I read it in a book of quotes): "Eyewitnesses were on the scene within minutes."

447. Fleabytes

Comment #131904 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Quetz: So there you go. David just wants to make us think. And the best way to do that is, of course, to read his book. Paula, how did that work out for you?

Well, yes. I have to confess I had rather a lot of thoughts whilst reading his book. Whether they were of the kind he was hoping for is another question altogether, though, of course.

448. Fleabytes

Comment #131880 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

ScottishGeologist: Paula, If you go here:
http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/AllMedia.aspx?speaker=David Robertson
you'll also be able to chill out and relax while listening to him in Cambridge.

Oh, how lovely - thank you. And it's not even my birthday. ;-)

449. Fleabytes

Comment #131873 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 2:01 pm

For anyone who's interested: David Robertson on YouTube, talking about The God Delusion and his book, The Dawkins Letters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2r1GPGDWrI

450. My Argument With God

Comment #131863 by Paula Kirby on February 23, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Radesq: OK so is it mostly the baggage associated with the term free will or is it the question of whether that degree of freedom actually exists that makes you wish he hadn't used the term?

Mostly the baggage. It's a theological term that any religious believer will interpret in a theological light.

I added the bit about the extent to which we can genuinely be said to have free will as an afterthought. I'm very wedded to the idea that I'm free to make choices too. It's just that research seems to show that we make those choices based on our personalities (over which we have no control), the behaviours we have been influenced by as we were growing up (over which we have no control), and our self-image (which may be a function of personality / environment / education etc - over which we again have no or very little control).