801. Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'

Comment #27623 by Veronique on March 25, 2007 at 5:49 pm

You know I always viewed the interminable infestation of Christian missionaries in non Christian countries as disgusting in the extreme even though they purported and, in various ways, did set up health, education, clothing of the old body etc. among the 'heathens'.

To extrapolate - the Muslims did the same all over the middle east and down into Africa, except they used the sword a bit more liberally. I have been reading about the early life and times of Ethiopia and of Axum in particular. The spread of both these religions has been attended by the most revolting practices.

Fear has to be the most manipulated emotion ever. I think it is Harris who says to try and put yourself into the shoes of a muslim and actually believe that it is your duty to kill anyone who refuses to convert to Islam.

BTW - apparently there was a mistranslation of 72 virgins awaiting the muslim martyr in paradise (a bit like the mistranslation in the Babble from 'young woman' to 'virgin'). This time the 72 refers to a handful of white raisins. Beautiful isn't it?

Cheers
V

802. God and His Gays

Comment #27620 by Veronique on March 25, 2007 at 5:23 pm

I'm sorry I can't take much of this seriously. Ridicule and mustard seem better.

Agkistrodon - I love Wholly Babble. I have never heard it before (I'm a sheltered girl). May I adopt it please? Interestingly and possibly aprocryphally, the reason lesbianism was never made illegal in the UK was because Queen Victoria couldn't envisage how it would work or what pleasure could be derived.

DavidJMH - here you go again. Now we all know that homosexuality and other licentious, outrageous sexual behaviour is what brought down the Roman Empire:)(how do you get a smiley face in here?) so why worry about the old USA.

The pathway to destruction is littered with hedonistic behaviour. Sit back, relax, have a cup of tea and think of a ribald joke or two.

While I am not intimately acquainted with the sexual habits of all primates &/or opther species, my guess would be that sex is sex is sex and then there's procreation. Certainly observable in blokes of all species with external little bits. Not sure about worms though.

Cheers
V

803. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27471 by Veronique on March 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Yorker - RD has such a terrifically high profile that many students, kids, young people, have heard of him and the raging debate about ID and Evolution.

I think it would be a good thing to develop a resource website that they can access. There must be some out there already, probably started by them themselves. One more attached to RD wouldn't go astray.

It would need a good moderator but I think the included resource material need not be that different from what is already here. Kids today have access to and know more than you and I ever did at a young age.

Comparative Religion should be included because I think that area is sadly missing in the school curricula. It could stem the hardening of belief before it calicifies.

They would also need threads and forums. Any links to this site would, hopefully, lift our game somewhat.

Let's ask RD and Josh what they think and if they have any practical format suggestions.

804. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27466 by Veronique on March 24, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I just loved the spider video on youtube!! What a hoot.

Everyone should see it. Talk about LOL. I choked on my cuppa and had to watch it again. I have a caffiene soaked friend who yabadayabadas like that spider. She wants to buy a free-standing hammock, 'cause she likes her smoke as well.

Classic!
Cheers
V

805. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27320 by Veronique on March 24, 2007 at 12:40 am

DavidJMH

Strange post - I presume you are referring to the end of the Roman civilisation. Be that as it may I have one serious bitch about your use of grammar.

A lot of people posting here seems to make the mistake of writing '..the sooner the trumpets of doom blow down it's walls'.

Please!! Understand that "it's" is an allision of the words "it is". If you are talking about the trumpets of doom blowing down a society's walls it must be written as "its" without an apostrophe (because you are using the possessive case). The only time you can use "it's" is as an allision. When used in the relationship of possession it has to be "its".

Thank you. My bitch for the day.

Cheers
V

806. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27292 by Veronique on March 23, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Phaderus and others

The Global Warming Swindle came up on a thread to this repost on this site

http://richarddawkins.net/article,722,Top-Scientists-Warn-of-Water-Shortages-and-Disease-Linked-to-Global-Warming,The-Associated-Press

Check this out - it was in a response to my query

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4399

and these three

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The Channel 4 show has been fairly well criticised and there are serious flaws in data presentation and their current status. Some are old, superseded and otherwise non rigeur. The deniers are getting themselves into trouble. They need to look to their standing within their peer groups if they want to be taken seriously.

Cheers
V

807. Religion

Comment #27266 by Veronique on March 23, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Thanks Yorker for the link to the ten commandments. It's 10.30am here and I have just voted in our state elections. Time for a cuppa and another laugh!

Another good day coming up! I'll go to youtube and find more of Carlin. New Yorkers seem to have a talent for taking the piss. Good stuff.

Cheers
V

808. Religion

Comment #26962 by Veronique on March 22, 2007 at 4:31 pm

What a delightful and uplifting video to accompany my breakfast. I know it's supposed to be old; I have never seen it. It has set my humour for the day and I am pleased.

I loved the size and raucousness of the audience. That is heartening as well. I keep on needing hope. Today will be a fine day.

809. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26801 by Veronique on March 21, 2007 at 6:27 pm

A few thoughts:

When Harris was castigated for The End of Faith, he responded with Letter to a Christian Nation which was a small, succinct lovely essay. Maybe RD will end up doing a similar thing.

It doesn't take interminable readings of interminable books to be able to make a comment or qualified judgement of the main thrust of the material. I am unlikely to read Cornwell's book simply because I have not got enough time to waste. We all make these judgements when we decide what to read. I read what I think is going to interest me and my choices are eclectic indeed. There are also many factors present in the choice of reading material, not the least of which is a sort of inchoate drawing-to particular material.

Someone has said that RD doesn't need to be a theologian to comment on OT and/or NT. I agree. Most Christians, Muslims and maybe less Jews are versed in any theological discourse. They just believe. Science is very different from that. You cannot just believe science. Even if you don't read science, any results from experimentation, deductive reasoning and theoretical argument has to make sense and we all have some inbuilt BS detector that seems to be buried in believers' minds.

So we have some strident atheists who are good with words, writing. Excellent! Think about the strident Robertsons (both David and Pat) and Haggard. They are on shaky ground and refuse to see it. Tillich said - faith is an act of knowledge that has a low degree of evidence. Any scientist is able to say - acceptance of science is an act of knowledge that has a high degree of evidence. Paraphrasing Harris - it is no accident that religious doctrine and honest enquiry are so rarely juxtaposed. Another one from Harris - the principle of faith leaves believers unequipped to distinguish truth from falsity. Even Hebrews 11.1 - faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I love quotable quotes:

Chris Hitchens - that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

I could go on; I collect these little treasures for my blackboard.

Maybe I am one-eyed in my negativity to religions of all flavour. I do read some theology and find it very difficult. I read science (as a non-scientist) as written by people who can write and argue and I don't find it as difficult (finer points aside). But I can't afford to waste time with all theology or all articles written from a religious viewpoint.
Anyone is able to interpret the writings of the 'holy' books and millions do just that. Science is not interpretable without specific knowledge in a number of disciplines. Much more proper and testable and it does get tested, over and over again. No 'belief' is necessary; an enquiring and clear mind has immeasureable value.
So be it.

Cheers
V

810. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26782 by Veronique on March 21, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Someone a little while ago said, on a different thread but about the same thing, that the focus to teach ID by these pseudo scientists and teachers has shifted from ID to the covert undermining of scientific method and critical thinking and analysis.

This is under the radar and will become even more cleverly insidious.

What I don't understand is why this school didn't set broad guidelines for its science curriculum and then stipulate that any teacher's class lesson notes within the timeline of a semester and/or year be submitted to the head of science in the school for ratification.

Clearly more diligent oversight is required to combat the slithering of ID and science de-bunking into US and probably UK schools. I hope OZ is still safe, at least in its public schools.

Cheers
V

811. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #26522 by Veronique on March 20, 2007 at 5:24 am

Thanks for the google link Aussie - I now have been able to watch the whole thing in one fell swoop. My queries and reservations are beginning to coalesce.

I have problems with the way it was put together and some of the inconsistencies I need to check out. There's a lot of information in the posts here too. 'Tis good. It's a massive issue.

Cheers
V

812. A rationalist's view of religious intolerance

Comment #25995 by Veronique on March 16, 2007 at 1:53 am

Isn't Williams good? He gets the best people on his shows. I have been listening to him for years; he also hosts the Science Show every Saturday at midday on ABC Australia. In fact on 7th November 2006 I found out about TGD and Paul Davies' The Goldilocks Enigma because that was what the Science Show was about.

He's terrific. He's written a book called 'Unintelligent Design - Why God isn't as smart as she thinks she is'. A good read; a short, wicked and witty debunk of ID. Should be on Amazon by now. Post-it flags needed as well!! For all of you not in Australia go to:

www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow

Cheers
V

813. For the God Question, a Biological Perspective

Comment #25992 by Veronique on March 16, 2007 at 1:45 am

I can't make a comment to Kendrick Frazier. There's no capacity within the Skeptical Inquirer to do so.

He should see my copy of TGD. I am utterly unable to make marks, underline or anything else on books. I don't turn down the corners of pages to mark something I want to go back to.

My TGD has stickers, some dozens of them. I use post-it flags; gorgeous little sticky clear flags with colours at one end. I use them in every book I read. TGD needs lots. So does The End of Faith - Sam Harris is just so quotable in pithy, short bits that I can post him on my blackboard easily (they get wiped off by early morning walkers - I haven't ever caught any of them doing it!!).

Good article Mr. Frazier. Picked up on what I thought were core chapters of TGD as well. Very satisfying.

Love you guys.

Cheers
V

814. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25509 by Veronique on March 13, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Steve - what a wild link. Thousands of abbreviations. Thank you so much. I haven't looked at them all (of course). I just had to write and say thanks.

Now I am going to pour a glass of wine and start going through some of them. I am in for an enjoyable time!!

Cheers
V

815. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25506 by Veronique on March 13, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Seti - Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. Thank you very much; I took the link to Ethical Atheists, read your post and the ones following. The balance is beginning to emerge.

I also found an article in the Independent dated 11th March by its environmental editor. Good article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

I took the liberty of sending your link to my brother in WA; I hope you don't mind. I am very interested in the fall out that is happening. I have requested our ABC to find a copy and screen it here in Australia.

I wish I knew more about everything; an impossibility I know. My father always said, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Unfortunately a 'little' is all I can ever realistically know about so many disciplines that abound.

Once again thank you so much.

V

816. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25414 by Veronique on March 13, 2007 at 2:23 am

Mikado - where do you live?

I live in Australia and we have a Federal Treasurer who has said publicly that our young women need to have two children per family to replace each parent and one extra for the country and has offered (I think) $4,000 as a one-off payment to mothers per child.

Now my country is one of the most dry in the world. We all live huddled on the coastal fringe. Water is a problem and we are all on restricted water usage. I don't understand why Costello (the Treasurer - who is an xtian) has offered this money; possibly because he wants to stem immigration by having so many Australians that we can no longer afford to take in refugees and other immigrants. It is wrong headed.

Our country is probably over populated by 2 to 3M people. Our resources are stretched to the limit. Our farmers commit suicide in our extended drought. Our topsoil is diminishing and we are depleting our artesian water supplies that are thousands of years in the making. It cannot be sustained.

I can't answer your question, but I can say it has nothing to do with an understanding of global population impact and global resource use. I used to think that people in power had some understanding of the global environment in which we and they lived. I no longer think this.

Others on this thread will give you their opinions. Good luck to you if you can ever come to terms with the idiocy that says go out and multiply. It is no longer appropriate. Any happiness about population growth by either France or Time Magazine or anyone else comes from a short sightedness that desires to shore up its own population numbers against intrusion by others, namely refugees and immigrants.

The low lying Pacific islands are, now, being relocated to Indonesia, because their islands are becoming awash and submerging as the seas start to rise and salinity becomes a problem that affects their ability to live on their home islands and forge a meagre living.

While ever we have nationalism as a driving force, none of our politicians will ever see the world as a closed system that can only accommodate x number of people.

I think one has to have a pathological personality to enter into the corridors of political power. Even if you start with an admirable desire to do good in the political sphere (unfortunately this applies to the police forces as well), it is more likely that you will be corrupted and look out only for your self interest (being re-elected, of course).

Your question is both easy and complicated to answer. I hope others on this thread can give you more acceptable answers. I don't think I can. I just get sad at what is happening.

Our global population sits currently at about 6.66 billion and the number is rising exponentially. It is patently unsustainable but the twits in power don't seem to see it. Why? I don't know. Everyone on this thread would tell you (presumptuous of me!!) that we can't afford this increase in population.

Then - imagine where we would be if we didn't have 2,400 children dying every day from hunger, thirst and disease - and that's only Africa. Imagine where we would be if we didn't kill people in wars and genocide. Imagine where we would be if people weren't killed in natural disasters. We would have reached unsustainable numbers long before this. All that has happened is that we have delayed the inevitable by horrendous and intolerable means.

I have to go - I just want to cry at the appalling mess we have made and continue to make.

Mikado, I truly think we are the cleverest and most destructive of species this poor planet has ever known. We cannot last and we will take all our co-existing species with us. How tragic is that.

V

817. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #25405 by Veronique on March 13, 2007 at 1:08 am

Right - found the Sydney Morning Herald article re: Ex. Brethren

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/07/01/1151174401719.html?from=top5

I hope you can use this as a link. I'm not terrific at knowing how to manipulate these things.

There's this one as well

http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/brethren/brethren2.htm

This is a sort of history of these groups.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/brethren-linked-to-howard-campaign/2005/09/15/1126750082584.html

This is about our white-picket-fence Prime Minister and the Ex. Brethren.

Let me know what you think. I apologise for this unprecedented number of comments.

V

818. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #25403 by Veronique on March 13, 2007 at 12:35 am

Carl - I looked through the 59 page prospectus. If the grammar of that prospectus is how the teachers intend to teach the children, then I would suggest the teachers work out the consistency of using the singular and plural in one sentence.

Sorry, it is a bitch of mine.

It is patently obvious and stated that these people are evangelical xtians. I wouldn't let a child of mine within 100 yards of this school.

V

819. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #25401 by Veronique on March 13, 2007 at 12:05 am

Sorry guys - check the link on Poseidon's comment 10 - that is Rod Liddell's interview with McQuoid. Liddell does become apoplectic.

Still looking for Oz's Hansard where our Green senator (Bob Brown) mentions the Ex. Brethren targetting him.

Cheers
V

820. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #25399 by Veronique on March 12, 2007 at 11:29 pm

AbstractMonkey - these are the schools alright. I thought there were more of them. They were set up when Blair offered (I think to the public) that if someone were to come up with 10% private funding, his government would come up with the rest to start independent schools. Vardy offered $20M from memory and Blair wacked in the rest and gave Vardy a knighthood!!. That was the genesis of the Emmanuel colleges. Vardy won't stop at three, but I am pleased his latest effort has been quashed. I had the impression they were in the north (oh my poor Yorkshire, land of my grandfather!)

Carl - see, looking at the Emmanuel website, little Simon knew what job he was applying for. That's why I don't trust his 'complaints' about his interview. He knew he was headed to a creationist movement establishment. Even the organisation that monitors education standards in the UK has said, and I can't remember where I read it, that the Emmanuel colleges reach a high standard in meeting the national education criteria. What is going on when the monitoring body can say something like that? Unless the colleges' mandatory reporting are so smooth that they can fool that bureaucracy. I presume that the bureaucracy must be Ofsted?

ScottishGeologist - did you find the video where McQuoid was interviewed by a nearly apoplectic interviewer-Rod Liddell. I think I traced it from the link at the top of this article. Urbane?? McQuoid had it in spades!! Unflappable, smooth, nice grey suit etc etc.

BaronOchs - oh dear, indeed. I checked out your link. Bloody frightening. I know that here in Oz, we have the largest group of Exclusive Brethren of whatever particular sect and it is seriously WEALTHY. One of our Green senators brought up in Parliament the fact that the sect had targetted him. This sect (didn't know about the windows) won't let its children watch TV, use mobiles or email; definitely no internet and they aren't allowed to mix with other kids. It's a secretive sect, about 14,000 members, they tend to home school if there's not one of their 'schools' in a particular area. No university. Break with the sect and you are denied access to your WHOLE family. I'll see if I can backtrack to where I first heard of them and will get back to you. Why is Ofsted loathed?

It's not as if any of us here want anything to do with this stuff, it's just that we need to know what they are up to. These are dangerous, wealthy and influential people.

Keep an eye on this thread for a few days and I'll find some websites for you. Disgusting isn't it?

Thank you all so much for what you have found.

Cheers
V

821. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25370 by Veronique on March 12, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Tattie - I have watched four segments of this doco on youtube. I wish I could find the next four but they haven't been uploaded yet.

Seti - This doco is not that old is it? I'm in Australia and Tattie's link is the first I had heard of it. How did you learn of the 'unravelling'?

I am now very interested. I can go back and make a list of the names of the people taking part and check their creds out but I could use a bit of help if you care to direct me to sites I could access.

I understand it was shown 8th March - that's only 5 days ago. What sort of furore came from the programme?

Many thanks to both of you.

Linda - I agree with you. It doesn't really matter what the outcome of this debate finally is, there are far too many of us on this tiny planet and we are destroying our own habitat at a fast rate of knots. The destruction of our co-existing species is an appalling legacy to leave when we KNOW it's our fault.

I cannot understand why we seem not to care. I know most of us are ignorant and it suits the powers that be to keep us ignorant and feed us BS. Those of us who try to sort it out are the few. And I certainly can't keep on top of it all throughout the world. Thank you, all of you who disseminate info on these threads. I, for one, am grateful.

Cheers
V

822. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25308 by Veronique on March 12, 2007 at 2:12 am

Jef,

It and its is okay. You are right, it would offend everyone. Following is the sort of construction I object to:

'Every now and then there will be someone who thinks 'they' can get improper outcomes.' The 'they' is utterly incorrect and this is the problem. Can you actually say:

'Every now and then there will be someone who thinks it can get improper outcomes.' Haha. Sounds extremely odd. I hate the ubiquitous use of 'get' as well.

You are right, it would offend everyone. Maybe that's the point. If we all used a singular of some sort, it may force the issue to find an acceptable singular to replace 'he'. Hahaha. Maybe I like it! I'm not sure yet. It might be worth it.

At the moment, in spoken language, I use the cumbersome 'he or she'. I have just noticed that I put the 'he' before the 'she'. Oops, my age is showing!

This is an hilarious subject and very entertaining. Thank you so much, but we haven't come far to a conclusion. Maybe we should ask Bill Bryson - very funny, very clever man with a good sense of humour.

In fact that is what I will do. BRB (thanks Luthien!)

Cheers
V

823. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25208 by Veronique on March 10, 2007 at 11:39 pm

MeIM: Just watched Barbara Forrest and thanks for the link.

I like her description of the religious right as the Creationist Movement attempting to advance a theocracy. I like it better than using the mad religious right as a moniker.

How on earth do you apprise the majority of 300M population living in America as to the real goal of these movements? How does a disparate group of normal people who happen to be atheists develop enough political power to actually have a public voice to express these concerns. I have watched some of the talk TV in America on youtube. I am amazed by the closed minds of presenters who DO have a vehicle through which to tout their wares.

We only have a few brave and already public figures to rely on. Who on earth is going to listen to me? I am a small single person in a large land. So are you, I presume, I am not trying to be disparaging. I can only do my little miniscule bit and a lot of my blackboard posts outside my house get wiped off.

I love your strength, but what to do?

V

824. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25207 by Veronique on March 10, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Thanks Luthien.

It is so easy when you see it spelt out. I'm not much good at abbreviated texting either, although some of that is bleedingly obvious.

To Pedant and Jef:
I love pedantry but it always seems to get up someone's nose. So I have eased off. However I do have a question:

Since the feminist revolution, no one has proposed an acceptable singular pronoun to replace the generic 'he', 'his' etc. I think this is why people generally and journalists in particular use the plural 'they'. I am not making an argument with the generic masculine, I understand and have no problem with the etymology of its use.

The only substitute has been 's/he' - a little forced and sounds like an expletive when spoken.

Care to add??

V

825. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #25187 by Veronique on March 10, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Can any of you UKers tell us how many Emmanuel School colleges there are in your country? I have an impression that there are more than any of us care to imagine. I do know that they exist because of Blair and Vardy. What amazes me is that they found the staff to man them.

I don't know what to make of young Simon however, I instinctively do not trust his comments about his interview. Maybe sour grapes - he says not.

Neander, I didn't realise you were an Australian. Where do you see this happening in our country. I know the Exclusive Brethren have their own schools and teach wonky stuff. You don't see this sort of thing in our state schools do you? Please tell me you don't!

V

826. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25164 by Veronique on March 10, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Richard,

Most people who convert to another (and usually more rabid) faith are either allocated or choose a name that signifies their rebirth into that religion. Quite a number of cults/religions do this. Pathetic if understandable on some level or another.

I have taken the liberty of emailing this group Zaytuna and suggesting that Yusuf may care to read the, so far, 69 comments on this thread. Not that I hold out much hope. Adult converts who start their own Institutes are more entrenched in their adopted cults than anyone else who was born and bred into a religion.

However, he may come to this site. All of us here let off a lot of angst but we are the choir. Your TGD got out there and lifted the game to a level not seen before, because of our global communications networks.

Someone has said 'two down, millions, billions to go'. Sigh.

Thank you and Harris and Dennett and all the rest that have and will come out with combative literature to try to redress this awful religious right cancer that is infesting the world. The more they try to hit on you, the less sense they make. That's heartening at least.

Cheers
V

827. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25156 by Veronique on March 10, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I haven't read the offending article in The Guardian and don't want to. RD has apologised for his words being taken out of context and misapplied. End of story.

As to what language to use - I think a very good case can be made for linguistic politeness. And I think it is time we all thought about how we use language.

It's one thing to let off steam here on this thread; we all understand the angst and frustration of having to deal with nonsense.

I was brought up understanding that clear, grammatical speech underpinned clear thinking.

I am not as stringent as Pedant on split infinitives !! however I think it behooves all of us to think about what we are actually trying to say.

I have a close friend who believes in 'the universe'. I ask her to substitute 'god' or the 'teapot' for 'universe', but this habit of hers is too difficult for her to break and, of course, it indicates a mind set anyway. I don't ridicule her in any way. It is a very slow process trying to bring her to think critically about her belief system.

The other thing she seems utterly unable to break is poor grammar. She uses the personal pronoun 'I' whether she means it as a subject or object. She uses 'laying' when she means 'lying'. I try to get her to hear her voice as she's speaking. This is virtually impossible for her, so I get her to read speeches out loud and change the timbre of her voice so that she may hear that voice as she speaks.

That too is difficult for her. If I were to take her to task for every error, we would never be able to have a conversation. Sigh! And I would lose my friendship with her because she, quite rightly, would see everything I say as criticism.

The same applies to my born-again neighbour. I think he is deluded but I can't call him that every day. We rarely talk about religion and he cherry picks the science that he says he has respect for. He is totally unable to change his mindset. In all other ways he and I get on well enough (he does bore me terribly; he can't discuss anything, not even the cricket because he's a one-eyed Aussie and hates it when anyone else wins!!). Very intemperate of him!

I don't want to alienate people, that defeats the purpose of trying to educate. Care, however, must be taken; calling people faith heads, uneducated, muddled thinker, no-brainer or whatever will defeat my purpose.

I would not take RD to task for his language; it's far too late for that; he is in print and the labelling language he used in TGD was designed for a different purpose. I am sure he doesn't intentionally set out to hurt people. He is trying to educate and bring to the fore some reasoned thought to replace blind belief. He knew, when he started to communicate via TGD, that he was entering the firing line. His use of language in that book, I presume, was to highlight and bring this issue into the public arena. He has done that.

His interviews however, even with Haggard, smack of quiet, reasoned response (well, sometimes he gets a little testy and no-one can blame him for that!). He's a well educated Brit after all and has to put up with more nonsense that any of us has to. He rarely makes grammatical errors in his speech and doesn't refer to his fellow interviewees by incendiary labels despite the vitriol and abuse he suffers in some interviews. Contrast his interviews with someone like Ann Coulter!!

We could do worse than take a leaf out of his book, so to speak. :)

Cheers
V

PS. what means lol? The others I can work out, well, at least, most of them. I wouldn't mind an explanatory list if anyone has the patience to write it for my edification. :)

828. Public Acceptance of Evolution

Comment #24856 by Veronique on March 8, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Hahaha. Sorry Shuggy. Are you from NZ?

They seem to do surveys that don't include all countries. I know that there are lots of these surveys. I can't attest to their methodologies though.

Some results seem a bit odd to me, but I don't know, as I say.

Cheers
V

829. Public Acceptance of Evolution

Comment #24842 by Veronique on March 8, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Poor DarwinLoves. Don't feel too bad. Your poor country is being hijacked and dumbed down in the process.

If it makes you feel less embarrassed, remember that this religious literalist phenomenon is spreading like a cancer throughout countries that should know better. It's growing in the UK and here in Australia. Turkey and similar countries, I can understand better. But all our countries have access to the best that education has to offer. Grapple that to you with hoops of steel and never forget that education will always be the key. The mad religites know it, they indoctrinate early and use fear as the motivator. We have to use reason early, questioning all the time and that helps to shore up against unreason and credulous belief in superstition.

My optimism (sometimes I lose it!) is that this mad religious stuff just cannot last. People like Dawkins, Harris, Myers, Dennett and a growing band of honest intellectuals are publishing more and more in an effort to combat this egregious movement and the more that the fundamentalists take to print, the more they shoot themselves in the foot. The wild-eyed fanaticism will reach its peak. Maybe not before I die and I am heaps older than you. But you are the next generation and you must help.

Neander has the right idea. Start teaching facts, start teaching critical analysis classes. Make a forum wherever you live, gather some speakers/teachers/instructors together and advertise a weekly/monthly forum where the young people of your area can congregate and participate in Socratic style discussion as well. It's probably the most satisfying thing you can do. Kids haven't got enough access to places that promote lively, entertaining and informative discussion.

I promise you it will make you feel better. Get a blackboard, put it outside your house and post contentious and readable quotes on it. When they get wiped off, re-post them. Mine get wiped off and I just put them up again. My grounds are - okay, you didn't like that one, well, cop this one instead. Perseverance always wins out. And your angst starts to diminish so you regain your sense of humour.

As I am sure Neander would agree, if you can see the light of understanding grow in even one person's eyes, you will have made a difference that will swell your heart and keep you going. I am an old teacher and I can attest to this feeling.

Never, ever, ever give up. Your world needs you. Stay positive. And besides you get to develop debating skills for the rest of your life! Yum!

Nazgul - I can't recall where I have seen it, but there are other studies that include Canada and Australia and we are pretty well up there. We are secular societies but we have to watch it. People like to fill in gaps and feel comfortable that all the answers are in. For some reason, the human brain seems to need this.

The poor old US is the most religious 1st world country in the world and, of course, the religions have lots of untaxed dosh at their disposal to spread the vicious hate material about reasoned thought and science. And they are dangerous. The old grass roots methodology has to reinvent itself. We all have to find practical ways of combatting this tosh.

Cheers
Vxx

830. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #24647 by Veronique on March 7, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Can I ask please, why are you all giving Biz so much time and effort? A few replies to his first post OK. But to keep on trying to talk sense to someone who obviously has no intention of listening to anything reasonable merely wastes so much time that could be given to more fruitful exercises.

Thank you to whomever it was who alerted me to stpetes being David Robertson.

Cheers
V

831. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #24482 by Veronique on March 6, 2007 at 9:14 pm

NJS

Your new 'religion' would never get off the ground as you well know.

If cigarettes were brought fresh onto the market now, the product would be banned under public health legislation.

The big problem is that cigarettes and alcohol have been around for so long, that while they are tut tutted at, they are part of the social fabric. Don't get me wrong, I indulge happily in both.

The same applies to these old religions. Your new 'religion' of hate, intolerance, sexism etc would end up being banned under appropriate legislation.

I too love the idea of bring a massive class action against these purveyors of hate!! How would you envisage putting the religions on trial? There are a lot that preach bigotry, death to apostates and the rest of their awful stuff. Would you pick one sect or cult as a test case? Under which jurisdiction would you bring such an action?

I could get quite carried away here. It is such a gorgeous fantasy.

Sigh
V

832. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24477 by Veronique on March 6, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Can someone please give me a link to real and serious TV coverage in the US. What is PBS? Can I get to view anything? I live in Australia; very different kind of culture. I watched youtube over the weekend and saw a very rabid Ann Coulter and it horrified me.

SonofPearl

Sign up for Sam Harris' emails at his website. Watch the Salk Institute conference by clicking on the site on Rd's home page. 15 hours and you can pick who you want to listen to.

Riley

Go to youtube and search for the Jesus Camps. You will find all the vitriol and dogma you could want about teaching children to 'die for Jesus'. Outrageous stuff.

Cheers
V

833. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24472 by Veronique on March 6, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Wow! I have just read through the Robertson letter of November 2006 (I didn't join this site until well after that date). No wonder everyone is going off on this post.

This morning on Radio National's Religion Report was an interview with John Carroll who has written 'The Existential Jesus'. I am going to read it. It sounds as though Carroll is dealing with a very secular Jesus and, as such, will be one of the more interesting books to dip into.

The theists' problem (and I note some atheists too) is that they accept everything the gospels say about Jesus. Not that the atheists have any truck with the gospels, it's just that they use similar standards and argue from disbelief (of course!) in the dogma.

I read IF Stone's 'The Trial of Socrates' a couple of months ago and it is a terrific little history. Jesus and Socrates are in the same boat. They left no written word and the only way we know them is through the writings of others. Xenophon and Plato et al wrote coherently about Socrates. And Socrates was teaching critical thinking; no wonder his students were more coherent.

Matthew and Luke are incoherent ramblers about Jesus, miracles and other supernatural stuff that just beggars belief. Carroll says that Mark is the only one, apart from Judas, who really understood Jesus. These things I don't know about which is why I will read his book.

I know very little about Christianity because an early epiphany led me to think it was all tripe and I avoided anything to do with it. I am now interested in some of it but not much, and only to try and understand this apparent rise of the rabid religious right. I understand partly the fear that secularism will erode the religites' access to power. And the literalist interpretation of Revelation, the Rapture and the rest of that stuff. But there has to be more to it.

I do not understand why anyone would attach the word fundamentalism to atheism. I do not understand why atheism should be described by some as a 'religion'. And I certainly do not understand why Robertson writes with such personal and slanderous vitriol about RD unless he is extraordinarily insecure in his 'faith', and, in the words of Scott Atran - 'belief is hope beyond reason'.

I have forgotten the merriment with which I wrote my last comment. It is all very depressing to read the religites' pretty nasty posts. Even though the atheists write with vigour, and are, in the main, articulate and so much more well read than I, I don't see the same vitriol that the religites display. I do, however, see some pretty poor atheist displays of ridicule. It is the misrepresentation of atheists by religites that irritates me and, I guess, the others and produces angry responses. And I have been guilty of that. But it just plays into the religites' hands and, as such, is non-productive.

John Carroll's book may help me to see this Jesus through the eyes of someone who is able to think and interpret and is a current 21st Century man (he's a sociologist from Sydney U, I think), rather than through the eyes of people who wrote in the 1st Century AD and who appear to be as thick as two bricks. I wish me luck.

Damn, I have just done it again, but I cannot take Luke and Matthew seriously. They just can't even agree on the family tree, let alone much else. I certainly can't take any of the OT seriously and my understanding (so far) is that Jesus turfed it out as well.

I never have much to contribute to these discussions except in support of RD and those who are able to take the religites on.

Cheers
V

834. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24430 by Veronique on March 6, 2007 at 3:56 pm

RD couldn't wish for a better way to keep TGD at the top of the book lists (meaning it will be read) by this triumvirate of McGrath, Robertson & Wilson. As someone pointed out, their publishers even used similar cover formats to RD's book. Bloody marvellous.

Somehow I doubt that these three will be the only authors who come out and write against RD, Harris and Dennett. It all gets merrier by the day. Bring it on. It aids the neuroscientific work being done in a somewhat more humble and quiet fashion around the world. As this all escalates, more funds will become available to the researchers. I can't wait.

Cheers
V

835. Native American populations share gene signature

Comment #22445 by Veronique on February 17, 2007 at 8:59 pm

I find this absolutely fascinating. It has been posited by Tim Flannery, and maybe others including Stephen Oppenheimer, that the first influx of peoples into the Americas was probably about 11,000 years ago across the Bering Straits. They were named Clovis man because of the tool sites found.

That DNA analysis can potentially identify the movements of peoples is another link between scientific disciplines. It helps to close even more gaps in understanding us since we came out of Africa.

Good to see; I hope there is more of it.

836. The God Delusion

Comment #21922 by Veronique on February 11, 2007 at 7:44 pm

To Fortuna...

The whole point of 'go forth & multiply' that the Catholics transposed into don't use contraception had to do with the Christians being in a tiny minority within a (then) very small global population. They needed to build their numbers.

That rationale no longer exists & is just plain crazy when global population is looking down the barrel of 6.18 (or so) billion.

Sex is enjoyable & most couples have some children (about 2.1 in Australia & others 1st world countries; more in 3rd world countries where they lose a lot from the usual suspects) and OF COURSE there are more sexual encounters than absolutely necessary for procreation. Most encounters are for recreation.

To H.Allen Orr

the 747 analogy is Fred Hoyle's not Dawkins & he plainly states that.

Dawkins & anyone is able to talk about religion. No one has to be theologically schooled to understand its basic tenets. The local pastor certainly isn't, neither is his 'flock'. There is no 'best thinker' on theology. It's a free-for-all. It's interpretive & based on a closed (not critically evolving and testing) text. Can't get far with that. No wonder no theologian or other xtian has come up with anything interesting to say.

I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day - Douglas Adams

837. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #19600 by Veronique on January 28, 2007 at 8:30 pm

As a state religion the Church of England started losing its relevance many moons ago. The influx of the peoples of its dominions started to erode its status.

I don't think that any country should adopt a 'state' religion but we are talking entrenched history. And don't forget the problems that came after Henry VIII. England fought very hard internally to retain its rejection of popish religion - Henry's daughter Mary was popish and created all sorts of strife. Elizabeth held it all together after she got rid of Mary. And it had nothing to do with the Wars of the Roses that bedevilled England before the Tudors came in 1485. That was internalised between the Houses of York and Lancaster. Henry VIII was looking down the barrel of civil religious wars and he was trenchant anyway. He got his own way and lots of heads fell in any case.

Even in Australia, where I live, and we don't hold much brook with public displays of religiosity, the country was settled under England's aegis and we see religious displays everywhere.

How do you eradicate such entrenchment? It is in the prayers that open parliament; it is in schools that recite the Lord's Prayer AND go to RE; it's in the hospitals where a patient has to refuse, vehemently 'blessings' by some priest, father or whatever. It is the default position.

And because it's the default position, kiddies are baptised for no other reason than 'it's the done thing'. You could say that the C of E is now emasculated but it still sits under the radar if not above it.

It is so embedded in our cultures that the hoi poloi won't let it go, let alone the Queen, our Prime Minister and the church itself.

Fonex_86 - I would love to agree with your transposed statement. BUT - how do you define normal, healthy tissue in societal terms? Easy when you describe non-thinking, unaware body tissue, but hopeless when you try to use that to describe a society.

I haven't got an answer; the C of E will remain in its default position. The bigger problem is other religions desiring to create, under the mantle of their particular religious belief, a state within a state. This holds horrendous implications for the societal and governing fabric of any country where these ideas are being postulated. Both in England and here. We have an Islamic group in Australia wanting to create a state within a state. Not a good prospect for any future.

In Australia there is a body of tribal law that the indigenous Australians value more highly than laws imported from England. While they may pay lip service to the invaders' laws their default position is their own body of law. It is difficult to find sufficient common ground despite the good will of both groups. How much more difficult when there is little, if any, good will? And that is what appears to me to be happening in both England and Australia.

Oh dear. What to do? Anyone else from other countries have a point of view?

Regards
V

838. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19477 by Veronique on January 27, 2007 at 2:40 pm

This is off the subject.

I have just read a 'review' of RD's TGD on Alternet.org and I have emailed the RD site with the link for Josh.

I am not sure that this is the way to send a link to Josh.

Can someone help me please.

Regards
V

839. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19401 by Veronique on January 27, 2007 at 12:04 am

I can also thank you Sancus for the post. The enjoyment I got from the somewhat one-sided exchange (does that mean that Fry isn't assertive enough?) was dampened by the obvious one-upmanship evident in this so-called debate. Yes they are both erudite and each was able to cite his references and his learning.

At the end of it what was said? Precious little. 'Yes, I have been here, there and everywhere and have heard people on-the-ground elucidating their opinions and I have distilled these opinions through my magnificent neo-cortex. I can tell you what is happening and what will happen in the near future'.

Sounds like arm-chair chat to me and the moderator (Joan) was marginalised most of the time. Neither of the combatants really addressed blasphemy which was what the programme touted.

It was amusing and erudite. I will listen to it again and probably make further, more meaningful comments.

At this stage, after listening only once (and enjoying the sort-of exchange) Australia has a saying about people like these - they must have two dicks (and be pulling both).

Regards
V

840. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #19397 by Veronique on January 26, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Fear of the electorate is an ever present danger with pollies.

I have yet to meet a pollie with balls. He/she would not be elected a second time and would lose the financial benefits. It is all about snout-in-trough.

You are right Eccles in our country, which is the only one we know intimately. I watch Question Time and cringe at the hypocritical reciting of the lord's prayer every time. I watch the lip service paid by the reciters and it is obvious from their faces that it is pure recitation and no belief (except maybe Rudd, Costello, Abbott, Andrews and absolutely Nile). Definitely Australia is one of the most secular parliaments in the first world (it may not last all that much longer; we are also being infiltrated by the religious right-damn their eyes, put out their eyes- a saying of my father's).

I really detest pollies because they are unable to speak truthfully about anything especially when they are up for election. Look at Howard with his water policy. Ideologically, it can be seen as a good move - he talks about a 10 year plan that goes over elections and then puts the onus to continue on next governments; unfortunately it is driven by election issues. The man is one of the most perfect pollies I have ever seen. Pragmatism plus! He sounds good, but then he is very skilled and probably the best political dissembler our country has seen.

I want to puke.

Regards
V

841. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #19383 by Veronique on January 26, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Michel de Montaigne, writing in the mid to late 16th century has a wonderful essay 'On Educating Children'. His main thesis is that the child should be encouraged to ask questions; the educator not to ram rote learning but to discover what the child is straining to learn and then facilitate that.

He also postulates a sort of socratic learning process by which the child discovers his strengths and interests without having to learn stuff that doesn't interest him. de Montaigne opts for a child who finds what he is good at and interested in and so has the potential to contribute far more to the happiness of his own life and to possibly make a contribution to the larger society. This, he says, is far preferable to having a mediocre 'learned' child with little, if any, interest in anything.

Sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it? Mind you in the 16th century he was writing to a friend (a mother) and advising her on the qualities to look for in a tutor for her son.

We now have 30+ students in classes, taught by teachers who, in the main, have themselves been taught in steadily declining quality-in-education systems.

I left school after matriculating in 1960. That's a long time ago. I despair of the level of language skills students are taught. Critical thinking is difficult to achieve when language becomes sloppy.

Religion consigned to history classes is a terrific idea. That then gets rid of RE altogether. Wunderbar!

Wishful thinking I know. We can but dream.

Regards
V

842. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19358 by Veronique on January 26, 2007 at 1:12 pm

I'm even later to this post Michael.

I think with all the toing and froing about RD's 'arrogance' in the face of Haggard's supercilious mouthing of utter drivel, the last part of Haggard's little diatribe has been lost.

He says to RD(paraphrased):

'If only you knew the books that I know, if only you knew the scientists I know, you would be great, like me.' I listened to that several times. Haggard is not referring to RD but to himself. Even if I am not hearing correctly, Haggard, with his smarmy, self-serving, know-it-all attitude is disgustingly smug.

Arrogance? - Haggard has it in spades. RD is understandably gob-smacked by the smug, self-important mis-informed and deliberately mis-understood 'evolution' that Haggard was sprouting to him, a respected evolutionary biologist. I think RD was very restrained in the face of that.

Nine9s - I am utterly unable to agree with your take on this. Look at the video again and note Haggard's false smiling, open mouthed smugness that delivers such balderdash that I am stunned. And I am just an ordinary atheist, not a biologist.

I do not think that Haggard believes his own drivel at all. He knew the camera was on him and his eyes flicked to that camera several times. He knew it would be seen by the multitudes and he couldn't possibly indulge in a reasonable conversation with RD. All he could do in the face of it was to repeat the rubbish that he tells his 'flock'. 14,000 of them, by one count, and all tithing to keep Haggard in the manner to which he quickly became accustomed. It is only some 4 years or so, since he was teaching the initial bible study class from some sort of shed/garage.

Then Haggard tried to toss RD off the site, threatening to have him put into gaol and confiscate the film. How arrogant is that. 'My land', 'my children' Haggard said. Hell's teeth!!

Garbage, every bit of it. See, even I can become angry listening to and watching Haggard's smarm.

Regards
V

843. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #18928 by Veronique on January 23, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Joadist - 18919

There is another difference between magic and religion. As pointed out in the article those adhering to magical practices and superstitions are aware of their illogicality and still adhere to their practices.

Religious people are unaware of their illogicality and truly believe in their religious superstitions and practices. :)

V

844. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18923 by Veronique on January 23, 2007 at 4:41 pm

gcdavis - 18785

I don't have a problem with your suggested RE questions and their content.

The problem, as I see it, is who instructs in RE classes.

When I was at school, the major religious groups were segregated so students went to one or another (depending on their parental influences). I went to the Library because my revered pater wrote to my school, at my behest, to excuse my from any religious indocrination.

Those who teach RE are committed moderates (maybe some extremists?) in their religions. How would they tackle (objectively and without subtle voice intonations) such questions like those you have posited?

The power of tonal voice authority is something we all grew up with, with our parents as the first purveyors of authority.

So I still see difficulty in presenting RE students with reasons to think for themselves in such a setting.

How say you? Any ideas how to rectify what I see as a problem?

Regards
V

845. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #18918 by Veronique on January 23, 2007 at 4:22 pm

blaine-18656

Your eg. of soul/spirit/ego valuing self, preserving and promoting the physical body for reproductive reasons sounds okay. I suspect it is unconscious however.

How do you reconcile your eg to bodies past reproductive capacity? I am representative of this older group, still preserving and promoting this poor old husk of genetic material in order to optimise my inevitable (even) older age.

Regards
V

846. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18706 by Veronique on January 22, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Joadist

I have re-read my last comment and realised how my last para sounded. My apologies. I live in a small community and all I was trying to say was that a portion of farmers and non-farmers do not want to think critically and are caught by the conditions under which they were brought up. This then appears to block any further mental growth.

I also tried to say that red-neck has a history not associated with ignorance. That the connotations of ignorance and other negatives have been added.

In any community the minority of loud mouths tend to create a flavour by which the group they are associated with become known.

If only education and knowledge would save us; I hold little, if any, hope.

Regards
V

847. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18557 by Veronique on January 21, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Luthien & Thad:

try this link:

http://www.raptureready.com/

Red-neck is supposed to have been coined to describe famers and others who lived in fairly isolated agricultural, farming villages who had little, if any, access to the outside world. The redness of their necks came from using hand tools to plough and cultivate fields. It comes from the sun burn on their necks.

That's the etymology. The connotations have been added that imply ignorance. I know a lot of non-farmers who are also ignorant.

I love Harris' take: Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance.

V

848. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18519 by Veronique on January 21, 2007 at 1:02 pm

The Catholics are threatening to close their adoption agencies because of the refusal of secular legislators to grant them exemption from anti-discrimination laws with regard to same-sex couples.

It's a heavy rod to hold over a government that has given more and more schools and hospitals away to religious control. It is also a government that doesn't spend enough of public funds on social services and prefers to spend those funds on war.

That the Catholics fund and manage, apparently, 7 adoption agencies is a do-good exercise that covers a deeper motive. Prosletysing is what Catholics are about and running social service programmes gives them a larger base of potential members. Not so altruistic after all.

As Russell Blackford points out, these agencies are tax exempt. I don't know how much they receive in public funding. Can someone enlighten me?

I don't agree with Russell that we should 'resentfully tolerate' any sort of discrimination. And certainly not a discrimination by which vulnerable members of our society are made even more vulnerable.

Atheisticism - right on! It's the hypocrisy that gets me.

Ian - I would love to see all religiously run and controlled agencies close down. The only reason they can continue to worm their way into a currently secular society is because governments don't properly fund secular agencies. Would the same government start proper funding if the Catholics carry out their threat?

And thanks to Linda for pointing out where these little kiddies come from in the first place. Add to that, some people give up a child for adoption because it is 'one too many'. Contraception banned by the Catholic dogma also has a lot to answer for.

And we, the biggest pest species this planet has ever known, continue to breed with the dire consequences that we begin to see all around us.

I guess a callous way of seeing this is that the sooner we poison our habitat and disappear, the sooner it can start to attempt to repair itself. The biggest sorrow is what we are doing to every other form of life in the world.

Oh dear. It is all so immense and has so many ramifications doesn't it?

Time to feed my cats and fish. I like them better somehow...

849. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18512 by Veronique on January 21, 2007 at 11:56 am

Martha comment 15,

You mistakenly equate RD's observation in River out of Eden with human society.

RD was talking about the natural world and that it is pitilessly indifferent. Nothing is harder for a human to watch a predator stalk, catch and kill its prey. It is humans who use words like cruel, uncaring etc. Those emotive words have nothing to do with nature.

RD describes the relentless march of the genes not the relentless march of human civilisation and certainly not the relentless march of fundamental theocracy that appears to be taking place on the planet.

Our problem with words is that we invented language and we anthropomorphise when we ought not.

Human civilisation, your care as a mother for your children in a so-called civilised world has absolutely zip to do with what RD was describing. The neo cortex can be a bit of a bugger sometimes can't it? :)

V

850. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18432 by Veronique on January 20, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Don't forget:

Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love - Einstein.

I suspect Einstein would have had a lot of fun with the raging debates of today.

Regards
V