51. Highway to hysteria

Comment #99257 by Veronique on December 16, 2007 at 5:51 am

Here you go. Just found this one. I thought you all might like it:-)

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3927

All good fun:-)

Cheers
V

52. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94164 by Veronique on December 4, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Can't help myself:-) Cop this from the comments at the Daily Express:


A RESPONSE FROM THE HEALTH TRUST TO MY COMPLAINT!

05.12.07, 1:41am

I sent a complaint to the Health Trust and quite swiftly received the following reply - needless to say it is a denial and full of PC explanations!

Here goes it:

"A number of media have today ran entirely inaccurate stories claiming that we have ordered staff to move Muslim patients' beds to face towards Mecca. This has stemmed from a positive press release that the Trust issued about appropriate routine training that is being provided to help develop cultural understanding.

"Our statement has been wrongly interpreted. The Muslim Moulana at Dewsbury and District Hospital is holding internal workshops for nurses to help develop their cultural understanding. Nurses are not being removed from their duties to move patients' beds towards Mecca. Moving patients' beds for prayer five times a day has not been suggested as part of this workshop and staff have not been ordered to do this.

"In the context of responding to requests from patients and families, particularly when faced with a very ill patient, it is entirely reasonable that nurses consider all practical steps to meet a patient's cultural or religious needs. This may include adjusting the position of the bed, or escorting the patient to the chapel or faith centre.

"If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me."

Thank you
Kind regards,

Emma Scales
External communications manager
The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust"

• Posted by: Robertocarlo • Report Comment

Cheers
V

53. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89500 by Veronique on November 21, 2007 at 1:05 am

Stop it, you buggers:-)

You will just make it harder to go. You know that it is addictive:-) Philip1978 will say the same, and will tease me that I will return:-). What am I supposed to do? Yorker's gone, Richard Morgan has gone. They were good value. I don't see Billy posting much anymore either.

We are being assailed by fundamentalists/totalitarians of all stripes. I hate it. I don't want to spend time arguing. I want to learn in a wonderful atmosphere of acceptance and gentle riposte. I want my ideas to be pulled apart with reasoned (and not horrid) discussion.

That is what is starting to be infiltrated. I hate that this wonderful site is transforming into useless argumentation. I don't really think that I want to cope with that.

I'll try, but I don't need what is happening here. I will miss a lot of you, but I won't miss the arseholes.

Josh, I take my hat off to you. You are one committed bloke. RD, I have a great regard for you.

I want to think this will not be my swan song, however I have been so disappointed by the posters on these last two threads, that I want no more.

My best
V

54. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89491 by Veronique on November 21, 2007 at 12:19 am

I think, after reading the posts on these last couple of threads, it is time that I bid farewell to the RDF site.

I am finding less and less reason to post any comment. The delightful site I found in December 2006 has been hijacked by all sorts of religites, ideologues and totalitarians of one sort or another.

Ah well, that is probably the way of internet sites. So be it. I was naive enough to think I had stumbled across a virtual community with whom I could interact and get on. That's still true but I will have to PM the people to whom I gravitate and let the rest descend into their own particular hells. I am very disappointed, but that's me.

Bye, bye
V

55. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89474 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 10:24 pm

198. Comment #89466 by almondo

I heard this on our news service this morning. What appals me about this is that the judges appear to have no understanding of modern international law and rely, for their verdict, on the fact that this girl was in a car with an unrelated male. This makes the mullahs happy with their verdict.

I am modern, Western, industrialised woman and there is no way I can actually get my head around this. Admittedly, it's not so long ago that raped women were accused of 'asking' for it in our societies. I suppose that still happens in the privacy of some Neanderthals' head space, but the courts are delivering equitable verdicts and more appropriate punishments to the men that perpetrate these crimes.

You may be right, mate. It's back to the middle-ages. Although, I hope that with the instantaneous news being beamed around the world and the public outrage that follows (or should follow), that these Islamic judges will eventually have enough courage to stand up to the mullahs.

Hope rises eternal…:-). 200 lashes with a cane? Shit, how barbaric is that!

She will be scarred for life (physically, mentally and emotionally), no one will marry her, the male members of her family may well stone her to death when she gets out of gaol. Her other alternative is to become a suicide bomber because she will get no support from anyone and, in Andy Thomson's assessment, will feel to be 'burdensome' on her family.

Nice one Islam. Sock it to me. I wonder what Ms Sultan would have to say about this. A lot, I would guess.
V

56. For the glory of God

Comment #89468 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 9:46 pm

119. Comment #89436 by windweaver

Ah shit! I am responding because no one else has yet. I can't be of much help to you in any case. You need someone like Lauregon to have a go at this. Or Tamas Pataki at Melbourne U. I am still reading Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. You could try giving your non-atheist a copy of Sagan's chapter on the fine art of baloney detection. Or arguing Sagan's chapter with her.

All I can offer has to do with wishful thinking, faulty memories, co-incidences and just un-patterned oddities. It won't help because your non-atheist will merely slide God or superstition or woo-woo bullshit into the gaps that science can't answer yet (if ever).

It still has to do with the non-atheist's desire for 'absolute certainty' and our apparent need to pattern. I don't think you can talk sensibly with people who have surrendered reason, scepticism and plain common sense to the supernatural, life after death and prayer power.

I would want to see the original studies. I question both the Targs memories. A lot of that article appears to report on a priori incidences and assumptions. It is quasi-science and what methodology was used to collate the results?

Check out Ramachandran's latest TED talk. I know that all this can, hopefully, be explained (one day) by neuro-scientific research techniques and strictly controlled observation.

That won't help you tomorrow and most people of this ilk are fairly locked into a mindset that is impossible to cut through. Parsimony of explanation won't help much either. I have no idea how to approach this stuff.

1. Birthday presents? – not too difficult to guess given continuing relationships with parents and extended family.
2. Opportunistic diseases in AIDS patients? – same medication, same stage of the viral infection, same T-cell count, same leucocyte count? More information would be needed from both the prayed-for group and the control group.
3. The dreams and disembodied voices? – anecdotal only – strong wishful thinking? Inability to let go of a seemingly extraordinary woman after only 4 months since diagnosis?

Shit Windweaver. I wouldn't want to tackle this. I am sorry I can't offer much at all.

Cheers
V

57. For the glory of God

Comment #89398 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Epeeist

My sides are hurting:-). That was wonderful. It is all in the delivery; he was marvellous. Thank you so much.

Roy

That was so funny. I scrolled down the comments – it was a hit with everyone. I don't think I will forget the chorus for some time:-)

Thank you both for making my morning.

Cheers
V

58. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89286 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 7:29 am

503. Comment #89203 by epeeist

Yes, I know. Have done that via Harris' site when I was emailed a couple of days ago.

Maybe DG could contribute to both:-).

I read somewhere that the Flea has been banned from this site. Wow. I hadn't realised. One less playmate:-).

Benway, gotta love your posts:-)

Goodnight everyone
V

59. For the glory of God

Comment #89278 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 7:00 am

Roy

Thank you - that was utterly hilarious!! A great note on which to go to bed:-)

Cheers
V

60. For the glory of God

Comment #89221 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 3:13 am

Kraut

Here's a news item -

http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10168914.html

You probably don't know that I used to be an accountant before I retired:-)

Cheers
V

61. For the glory of God

Comment #89215 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 3:03 am

108. Comment #89212 by Flagellant

I didn't ever get the feeling that Salley Vickers was being ironic. I had two responses from her via her website, after I emailed her. Neither of those responses indicated irony.

I think I posted them on the relevant thread. Let me know if you didn't get them.

Cheers
V

62. For the glory of God

Comment #89211 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 2:55 am

I think, wkburnette that you may have posted on a different comment thread.

This was my answer to Sally Vickers in early September this year:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't be so precious and ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
V

63. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89199 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 2:05 am

Dianelos started posting on this site on May 13th this year. Since then he has posted 935 comments. And it doesn't look like he will stop.

Have you guys made any headway?? I think not. Not that I would want to stop your fun, frustration or whatever:-).

I still have this niggling desire to ask that he pay good hard cash for the opportunity to infest this site with his wonky reasoning. Josh Timonen spends most of his time administering this site. He needs his coffee to stay awake. Pay some money to RDF and maybe I won't just click past your comments, DG.

You should admit that you abuse the good naturedness of other posters to an extreme degree. How about a $100 donation to RDF, just to show that you are cognisant of the time you waste? Please don't respond to me, just pay your dues.

Cheers
V

64. For the glory of God

Comment #89189 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 1:22 am

Kraut, thank you for your reply. May I please make a few points:-)

RD was writing a polemic against religion. He's an evolutionary biologist and tries to develop an argument that explains the growing religiosity in our current world. He does so through the application of his discipline. That seems fairly normal to me. It doesn't mean that I totally agree with his argument. As well, he is appalled by what actions have been, and are being, taken in the name of religion. So am I.

That's fine. That's his choice to write such a book and it has been successful to a remarkable degree. There's Harris, Dennett, Onfray, Stenger, Hitchens, Pataki and many others. The books they write display their particular points of view. These books have found an eager readership. That tells me something about the paucity of published literature that the current population, especially in the western industrialised world, has been hankering for.

I trust you are not slinging at them because they don't include your point of view. They are their own spokespeople, not mine or yours or anyone else's. If they develop a following amongst their readership, so be it. That's the way things happen.

I mentioned Chalmers Johnson in my last post. He writes as well, remember. His books, together with numerous op-eds and other articles (and books) by other authors actually come closer to the points that you want to make. You may have disagreements with them as well on various points. Have you read Mark Lilla and Abid Ullah Jan? Jan disturbs me with some of his incorrect statements that could be taken as rote by unwary readers without a sufficient knowledge of history. The point is that whatever we read that resonates with us needs careful analysis so that we don't fall into the trap of emotional acceptance of arguments that we want to believe.

Did you watch the different addresses by various speakers at the AAI conference? They didn't necessarily address or expand upon RD's book. I think what I am trying to say in a somewhat ham-fisted way, is that all of us, calling ourselves atheists, have widely disparate views on the state of the world, its activities and the reasons for those activities. This is apparent throughout the publishing industry.

Some of those views were expressed at AAI. I think we all tend to agree that the current state of world affairs is less than it could be and we all have different ways of addressing and assessing this. It doesn't mean that any of us has the correct over-arching view and that that view is the only one.

I am glad you are old:-). Do you beat me in age, I wonder? I love passion but its direction has to be practical. It's very easy to go off half-cocked on a tirade. I really don't think this is your thrust anyway. Talk to me properly and I will talk back:-).

I haven't got the answers to the world's ills and neither do you. But we can discuss things without getting over-heated; put forward viewpoints and have to defend them on a comment thread. That's how I see this site. It's not so much a place where you make a stand as a place where you put a point of view and have to back it up, understanding that you won't necessarily achieve a consensus and will have to handle criticism.

Consensus is not something we seem to be able to achieve anyway. I guess it has got to do with being human:-).

Cheers
V

65. For the glory of God

Comment #89159 by Veronique on November 19, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Calm down Kraut. We all hear you.

No one would disagree that bin Laden is/was a Muslim fundamentalist terrorist. He may be dead for all we know. We have all read reports of bin Laden being in hospital in Pakistan prior to 9/11. We have all read reports that puts a CIA operative visiting bin Laden in that hospital just before 9/11. Although from my memory, bin Laden was in that hospital a week or so before 9/11. And you must know what news reports are:-) I take, with a large grain of salt, that dialysis machinery for the Taleban was funded by Pakistan. Bin Laden's family could have bought such machinery and pay for medical operators out of small change. And, he would not have had to go to hospital in Pakistan. Hospitals are the best ones for monitoring kidney disease. So why did he go to Pakistan? Lots of questions, not many sensible answers.

We all know that the bin Laden family is wealthy and has received US dollars over the years. We know this also about Saddam Hussein.

We all know how BushCo stuffed up the reaction to 9/11. We have all read the myriad conspiracy theories that BushCo and the CIA orchestrated 9/11. We have all heard the revolting rhetoric from the religious right.

What is your point?

It is now November 2007. We have a build-up of religious (and, of course, there is massive money involved) fervour that is starting to tilt at the other religious side. We have Iran asking that oil be bought in the purchasing countries' dollars not US petrodollars. It is not a simple equation at all. There is a very convoluted and mostly hidden agenda(s). Chalmers Johnson filled in a lot of factual information for me.

We have the US trying to hold onto Iraq and its oil resources and needing to build a pipeline from the Caspian area in order to fulfil promises made to US and other oil corporations to carry the oil that these corporations have sunk billions of dollars into sequestering for themselves.

We have Chavez, the first South American economy to have paid its interest debt off, thumbing at the US, developing a South American equivalent to the IMF and World Bank. Chavez is at one with Ahmadenijad in trying to curb US global hegemony. They are not alone.

We have Putin manipulating and developing a control over Russia that we haven't seen since the end of the Cold War. And, cleverly, he has done a deal that gets an oil pipeline out into the Mediterranean from the Caspian.

We also have the European Union that falters, slips and gets up again. That's a lot of countries trying to engender political harmony (even with desires of supremacy by some of those countries).

Do you seriously think that no poster on this site is aware of global politics? Do you seriously think that we are not aware of this very turbulent time and the many overlapping issues that are in play? I don't read papers. I subscribe to a very wide variety of on-line news sites. I am reasonably sure that all of us here do the same. We read and assess. That's what we do.

You come along and castigate us because we haven't the same definitive fervour that you have for your point of view. OK. Fine. But you have to expect critical assessments of your points of view.

I get castigated as well. I learn from this site. We all do. There are people here with different interests from mine; I learn from them. Most of them don't call me stupid. They give me their point of view in fairly calm and measured tones. And I appreciate what they are saying to me.

You can be a firebrand if you so desire. All I can say is that people will probably stop responding to you. And then, what will you have achieved except an accelerated heart rate and more angst?

Calm down – I assume you will answer this post and take me to task. Go ahead. Just remember that sarcasm doesn't work well within the written word on the internet.
V

66. For the glory of God

Comment #89124 by Veronique on November 19, 2007 at 6:41 pm

85. Comment #89108 by Eric Blair

Recently we had the Catholic Archbish threaten Catholic politicians. George Pell said that he would not grant (or whatever you call it) the sacrament to those Catholics who voted for stem cell research.

He was taken to task by any number of people and another Catholic priest said that if Pell refused any MP that his church would welcome the MP.

It was a storm in a teacup, but it highlighted the fact that Pell was prepared to delve into politics openly. I don't think he can be stopped.

Pell's cousin is a lesbian and he refuses to meet her. She wrote him a letter that he wouldn't (didn't?) answer and she came out publicly. Not a very nice man. He was also part of the Ecumenical Council that voted the Rat into office. I am told that the Council wanted conservative bishops and Pell is certainly that:-(

Ah well. Edit It's the religious undertones that I don't particularly like in Australian politics. Otherwise we are pretty secular, except for the Exclusive Brethren and their mountains of available dosh.

Brian, when Melbourne becomes bitterly cold, you will have to come up here into balmy weather. A CAPAC meeting in sunny Mullum would be terrific:-). I will have to study philosophy in the meantime:-).

Cheers
V
Edit Just saw your comment Russell, hahaha.

67. For the glory of God

Comment #89111 by Veronique on November 19, 2007 at 6:15 pm

80. Comment #89089 by BAEOZ

I guess, to be fair, the IPCC sees Homo sapiens as the only species that can do anything about it. I am sure that all the consultants to the IPCC are as painfully aware as the zoologists and others that most, if not all, species will suffer.

Hi Russell - the cockroaches are always touted as the ultimate survivors aren't they? I wonder if they actually are. I would love a time machine too:-). Wouldn't it be fascinating?

Whimsical, indeed. You paint a good picture:-).

Cheers
V

68. For the glory of God

Comment #89105 by Veronique on November 19, 2007 at 6:01 pm

65. Comment #89043 by BAEOZ

Hi Brian. I know that I didn't quote the IPCC report properly.

Of course the planet will survive but not in the way we know it. I personally seriously doubt that we can stem the tide and reverse the problems facing us. This is my take from the IPCC report also.

I agree that we, and a lot of other species, are very vulnerable to climate change and global warming. I also agree that if we were to go extinct, the world would recover eventually. It's the destroying of other species as well as ourselves that is distressing. We may deserve it but no other species deserves it at our hands. I know I have said it before but I consider Homo sapiens the greatest pest species this planet has seen. Despite our amazing achievements, there is a fatal flaw. The traits that propel us also destroy us.

If we had the will to limit our global population growth, I doubt that we would be in this mess. It doesn't seem to matter how often anyone or any group points to the exponential population growth, there remains a deafening silence from governments and the religions just add to the problem.

I sometimes wonder what the Rat actually thinks while he continues to ban birth control methods and abortion. What about the heads of other religions that call for more children to be born? Do you think they really can't see the global stressors that emanate from population growth?

Admittedly I don't see the world through religious eyes, but I am a pretty ordinary type of person and it is glaringly apparent to me. Staggering, really.

And Steve – that 5C temperature rise is what frightens a lot of climate scientists and other allied scientists. That figure is talked about a lot. The extinction of butterflies and birds and the golden frog, in particular, came about at a lower temperature rise. The butterflies couldn't get high up enough to escape the heat. The frog ended up with no water to breed in as it all evaporated.

Very simple examples and I haven't explained all the stressors that contributed to the extinctions. But, yes, a 5C rise is quite massive. I read somewhere that we could possibly handle 3C but with increased deaths of the very young and the old. Maybe this will be one way that population growth will be halted. And then there are the natural processes that stem from the global changes. We can model them but we don't really know the effect of what we are doing. Poor old Bangladesh is suffering again.

I am reminded of a spate of post-apocalyptic movies that came out a couple of decades ago. And I have yet to read Cormac McCarthy's The Road.

And yet, we go on with business as usual. Strange isn't it? Please don't have too much of a go at me Diacanu:-), my picture is very different from Kraut's.
V

69. For the glory of God

Comment #89040 by Veronique on November 19, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Sorry for the double post everyone. I only saw it this morning and have now removed it:-).

Thank you Steve, you make a good point. Given enough time, human greed and personal concerns will lead the agenda. I suppose I am just not sure of the time scale.

It is true that ID has failed in, I think, all eight cases it has come before the courts. That is encouraging. And it has been only 150 years since Darwin (and Wallace) so shocked Victorian England with the theory of evolution. I can understand people who are used to thinking of themselves as 'special' and made in god's image, being horrified by the thought that we are all animals and linked together. I guess evolution will catch on :-) when these people realise that their health is inextricably tied to the advances made under the banner of science and evolution theory.

Tell you what though, the lies that are told, in the courtroom, by the Michael Behes of the world shock me. I only hope that people start to call into question the relevance of a religion that condones, if not actively encourages, those lies.

And yes, I do think that stem cell research will be accepted eventually in the US, if only because medical researchers will move away to countries that enable this research. The US doesn't want to slip down the ladder into scientific obscurity. It is starting to slip now. And China is on its way up the ladder.

The loonies still worry me though. Especially when they are in charge of the asylum:-). And especially when they appear to be more interested in their bloody after-life than the one they, and we, have now.

The latest IPCC report makes a grim warning that if we, as a group of 180 odd nations, can't pull together for the common good then by 2015 we may well have lost the race to restore the planet to health.

Then Goldy we have good reason to contemplate our children's and grandchildren's futures. Give Emma a hug from me for her birthday:-). I won't get to see young Finn again until this time next year. He's a mix as well. His mother is Burmese and lovely.

While ever 'nationalistic' fervour is whipped up, we will never gain consensus about saving our habitat. At least, that's part of the problem. Have you seen Brian's video on global governance? It's here:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=98ScgQPt66E

I think that I agree with him. Again, I am not sure that we have the time to organise ourselves into a truly co-operative global community. The human species seems very slow to change, even for its own benefit:-).

Thanks windweaver for the reference. I think Pape and Pataki would probably agree. I must come up to the Gold Coast and meet you. I am going to Brisbane shortly to meet Peter Ellerton. Should be good:-)

Tea time Quetz. Nice to see you back Philip:-)
V
PS Kraut - you make assumptions that people don't see or talk about anything except religion on this site. You are incorrect in this. We are not mono-dimensional.

70. For the glory of God

Comment #88803 by Veronique on November 19, 2007 at 2:35 am

46. Comment #88769 by Quetzalcoatl

I had several drinks – it didn't help. Now I am back on tea again:-)

If atheists (et al) are only 25% or, I would guess, less of the population, all I can see is rampant religiosity and the marginalisation of us atheists.

F**k, I hope you are right. I seem to have lost my sanguine attitude (I hope it's temporary!)

Thank you Quetz. I just don't think I am doing enough, even if enough can be done and I am not convinced of that anyway. Sob.

Goldy, I have returned from a week in Perth looking at and holding this wee mite. I don't like to think of him at the age of fifty. His name is Finn Lloyd Panther. Isn't that a grand name? He will live in a different world and I will be dead. His fighting for an equitable life will be a very different from the one I garnered for myself.

Sure, I can say life goes on. Quality is a different concept and I can only review my 64 years and say that I have had the best of it:-) To me it looks downhill from here.

I suppose it has always been thus. It is, however, cold comfort.

Philip, I know:-) but all I do is indulge myself in beverages that loosen my tongue and allow cant to issue:-) I need to smack my wrist.

kraut, you obviously haven't read my comments over the past year on this site. I am actually quite consistent and understand a lot more that you attribute to me on this, your post. That's OK, fortunately I don't take offence readily any more. Mind you, DG and the Flea have been known to get me going with their intemperate language (for which I have apologised with a smile).
You will have to learn that I am not a philosopher, nor a biologist, nor a quantum physicist, not even a medico. No argument from authority. How sad. Sorry, I am just smart enough to understand bullshit when I see it.
Talk to you later, maybe

My love to you all
V

71. For the glory of God

Comment #88765 by Veronique on November 19, 2007 at 12:30 am

Will you please stop rabbiting on about the secularity or not of Canada's provinces!! Are you incapable of seeing the bigger picture? Who gives a shit whether Ontario is more secular than Quebec or any other county? Who gives a damn? This is bigger than any regional conflict, real or perceived. Get out there and talk, talk and talk.

Get a grip for gravy's sake!! This is a massive problem that threatens all of us. I have very disillusioned friends who are quite accepting that we will be annihilated within 20 years. That attitude horrifies me. But there's not much I can summon for my defence. This acceptance of our potential annihilation distresses me no end.

What am I to do? Lie down and be subsumed by a new dark age? Or do I fight to try to stop this maniacal theological bullshit from coming to its imagined (and desired) fruition? Am I being paranoid about an eventual outcome? Am I frightening myself because of the stated desires for outcomes that pit one group against another (to the death)?

I would like someone to calm me down. Can you do it? Can you help me understand that my fears are imaginary? That I have gone over the edge? That everything is hunky dory and I am tilting at imaginary windmills?

Am I being stupid and should I indulge in philosophical meanderings in an attempt to ameliorate my very present misgivings?

Steve Zara – you are a calm and considered person and Epeeist – you have a wonderful sense of satire and sarcasm. Can either or both of you make me feel better about our future?

Benway and Lauregon, can you help me to stay calm in the face of this appalling world disintegration?

I, obviously, need another drink:-)
V

72. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88734 by Veronique on November 18, 2007 at 6:01 pm

361. Comment #88573 by epeeist

My apologies for neglecting to thank you for the delightful:-) Chicken-Licken tale. Lauregon's post reminded me:-).

This thread is picking up again, you clever lot of posters you:-)
V

73. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88708 by Veronique on November 18, 2007 at 3:53 pm

The only way I can see (I can be corrected – preferably not by DG) that anyone involved in science can also entertain superstitious beliefs is for him/her to indulge in the mental gymnastics to build up a wall (not that one Hitchens, but closely aligned) that compartmentalises the irrationality of believing in gods, against the clear rationality of scientific questioning and testing.

Someone posted (not sure of the thread now) the following quote from Baron d'Holbach written in 1770:

If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them; and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests.

On the back cover blurb of Tamas Pataki's very interesting book Against Religion is this:

Drawing on developmental psychology and psychoanalysis, Tamas Pataki argues that many fundamentalist beliefs and attitudes - on sexual morality, the subordination of women, homosexuality, the intolerance of difference, and the belief in the inerrancy of their holy books - have little to do with doctrine, and much more to do with malign narcissistic traits expressing themselves in religious garb.

Against Religion is a highly original and controversial exploration of the deeper sources of religion which provides the psychological dimension missing from many contemporary critiques.

I think that people who actively opt to believe in gods and holy tenets are playing up human narcissism to its highest fault line. Physicists (even Nobel Prize winners!) are no more immune from this than anyone else. They are just more obdurate in maintaining their mental wall.

To understand that we are animals, that the earth and its crusty:-) contents are part of the whole deal of this planet, requires a letting go of that narcissism and the development of a certain humility that has nothing to do with the humble hubris exhibited by the likes of Alistair McGrath.

The need of desperate people to feel that they are somehow 'special' and require an un-evidenced deity to provide that 'special ness' when everyone around them sees them as 'ordinary' must be quite disquieting.

They have my sympathy; their beliefs do not.

Nobel prizes are not accurate gauges against which to measure whether or not someone has grown up. I presume steveroot that this follows on, partly, from your comment:-). Your tooth x-ray is sometimes unsettling. Sound teeth though:-).

Now to crunch some numbers
V

74. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88595 by Veronique on November 18, 2007 at 2:06 am

369. Comment #88591 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Bang, bang!!!

There, I have done it:-)

Nothing further from me and hopefully from no one else! Don't hold your breath though:-)

Busy fingers typing need to have other occupations to ameliorate the desire to answer drivelling posts from DG.

Goodnight all
V

75. For the glory of God

Comment #88468 by Veronique on November 16, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I am reading Tamas Pataki's Against Religion at the moment. I commend it to everyone. His is a different take on religion and well worth adding to the stable of books that critique religion. Published in Australia by Scribe Books – scribepublications.com.au.

Starting from a very low base in the USA at the turn of the nineteenth century, there are now more than 500 million Pentecostals worldwide*1. Reports also suggest growth of religious confession in the Muslim and Hindu worlds. According to John Haldane, 'the religious outnumber the agnostics and atheists by four to one'.*2

*1 McGrath The Twilight of Atheism, 2004, p.195
*2 Haldane An Intelligent Person's Guide to Religion, 2005, p.23

I like Dan Gardner's writings. I consider him a sane reporter of issues at hand. I have no wish to get involved in the perceived religiosity of a particular area of Canada, Australia, Europe or wherever.

500 million!! I have no reason to doubt McGrath's figures, unless someone can provide properly evidenced, statistically standardised polls to the contrary. Wake up you lot. This number must be growing exponentially.

Regional tiffs aside, we are facing a burgeoning growth in irrationality. The people on this side of the pond are deliberately facing up to people on the other side of the pond and, I have to say, the number of Muslims, on the other side of the pond, committed to world-wide conversion and theocracy frighten the shit out of me.

This is not a theological argument held in the hallowed halls of Oxford by over weight, over fed academics; it is being mounted by people who do not think theologically, but have an unshakeable ideology that their particular God is right.

So far as Muslims are concerned, Mohammed wrote the last 'inspired' word of God, long after the Jesus cult got going. The Muslims discount Christianity as having been outclassed and updated by the Koran and Hadith.

So far as Christians are concerned, the Book of Revelations predicts what will happen at the 'end of times', provided the stipulated Revelations' criteria are met. And they are trying their damnedest to hasten the fulfilment of those criteria.

This shit is not going away soon. As part of that 25% of agnostics and atheists, I have grave concerns that go way beyond regional partisan alliances.

I beg you to stop bickering about your own particular areas and their adherents to one cult or another. This is a massive problem. Please focus on the common enemy of unreason and superstitious religious dogma and get out there and do things to draw in the fence sitters by alerting them to the dangers. 25% is not enough to combat the encroaching new Dark Age and potential theocracies that threaten reason and science.

We need to move and move fast. My neighbour thinks that the second coming is likely to happen within his lifetime (he's 69!!), What about the Ken Hams of this world (an Aussie export – how embarrassing!)? What about the televangelists and the radical mullahs? This spread of radical religious fervour throughout the world has a base of religious dominionism that threatens to engulf us.

Whew – end of rant. Sorry, but you get my drift:-).
V

76. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88342 by Veronique on November 16, 2007 at 5:18 am

Hahahaha!

DG's posts usually make me cross but this time all the responses and ripostes have made me laugh out loud.

Steve, I loved your 309. Comment #88250 and Epeeist your 311. Comment #88312.

What a great thread to go to bed with.

Thank you guys so much:-) See you in the morning.
Vxx

77. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88338 by Veronique on November 16, 2007 at 5:03 am

18. Comment #88320 by crazy old man

I know you didn't mean it to be but I found your post hilarious. LOL!!

Anecdotes are a bit like that. I haven't got one to match yours:-) However, I enjoyed it immensely.

Thank you
V

78. African Crucible: Cast as Witches, Then Cast Out

Comment #88292 by Veronique on November 15, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Comment #88199 by elfinabout

Thank you!! I have been saying for months on these comment threads that we can no longer turn blind eyes to religion of any sort, anywhere.

My intense anger, at reports like these, is too deep for tears. Containing that anger and redirecting it into useful, productive actions is very difficult when you live in a country where religious tolerance is the norm and no one takes any notice of people like me who are just seen as eccentric. It gives me the shits.

I know why I am angry. Short of going to Angola and spending the rest of my life trying to deprogram people and avoid being killed myself, what the f***k can I do? My frustration levels, when reading reports like these, goes into overdrive. And I feel so impotent to do anything that can institute change.

Yes, I know it's the 21st century, but the people who are described in the above article, are subject to witchdoctors (control freaks) and the f*****g Catholic and others churches who send their 'missionaries' over to these places in order to inculcate yet another set of ridiculous beliefs and sugar-coat their 'message' with 'conditional' aid. It drives me bonkers!!

I understand how you feel
V

79. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88290 by Veronique on November 15, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Good on you Kelly O'Connor! Nice to see you writing and posted on this site. I have yet to read Dougherty's article however I am sure you picked the thrust and have responded in your properly irreverent manner:-).

Actually no. You have taken to task someone who has attempted disparagement of a group of people who came together to listen and learn in a well-organised and well-executed convention.

Would Dougherty have written similarly about a convention of clean energy protagonists coming together to exchange views on how to reduce our dependence on oil? Would he have written similarly about another group coming together to exchange views on how to build a health care safety net for the millions of people who need a universal health care system? Or education professionals? I am sure you could add your own lists to these.

No, you have responded well to someone who has written a nonsensical polemic.

Well done!

Duff is playing the ingénue very well. I have been caught by posters because I take them seriously and my reply is totally inappropriate. Duff is very clear:-).

I will now read Dougherty's piece.
V

Edit I have read Dougherty - I will reiterate - well done Kelly!!

80. Rome playing politics

Comment #87910 by Veronique on November 13, 2007 at 3:35 pm

30. Comment #85276 by annabanana

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I have been away, ogling a new grandchild:-).

I felt like we were making progress, but in the last week or so, that thought has been vacated.

I know. I vacillate between optimism and despair. Until yesterday I was feeling optimistic. While I was away I attended 4 hour 'Philosothon' hosted by a school in Perth with eight other schools taking part.

I was delighted and uplifted listening to these Years 8 through 11 debating straight from RD's book on Does God exist?. They also debated on whether humans have free will, what is the nature of the human mind and whether it is morally worse to actively kill a person than to passively allow that person to die. A Year 8 student cut through a lot of waffle and was awarded a prize for the student most likely to succeed as a philosopher.

This was the inaugural Philosothon so I will go back next year to see how the debating skills have developed. Met some interesting teachers and others and exchanged email addresses so that we can keep in touch.

I want to introduce Philosophy and Ethics into New South Wales' public schools as a core unit. Talk about an uphill battle! It's worth our best shot though.

I got home yesterday and found Victor Stenger's article in The Skeptical Inquirer. It's enough to make me despair.

So, yes, I have to keep on top of the despair and do something practical that uses my energy and keeps me from snivelling into my soup.

It won't change much in my lifetime but, for now, it seems to be a matter of keeping the focus of reason in public view while finding ways of undermining the concerted spread of un-reason and superstition.

I see this as a real life danger, not just a matter of expressing our opinions on this wonderful web site. Sure, we can give each other support and ideas, but we all have to do something. I, for one, don't want a new dark age descending on the world.

Nice to be back:-).
V

81. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87818 by Veronique on November 13, 2007 at 8:40 am

This seems as good a thread as any:-)

We understand that male suicide bombers are considered Muslim martyrs, go to Paradise and have 72 virgins available for their (the martyrs') delectable pleasure, right?

What can female suicide bombers hope to achieve by their martyrdom and transport to Paradise?

I love the BS
V

82. Rome playing politics

Comment #84919 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 7:58 am

23. Comment #84883 by Marie-Louise

How disheartening for you Swedes. Has everyone forgotten the religious wars fought throughout Europe; the millions who were slaughtered; the dismemberment of the Catholic Church's stronghold over the populace?

History is the most important tool we have, imperfect as it is, to remind us of what happens when we lose vigilance and allow superstition to have a public voice.

Dear M-L, I have the utmost sympathy for you in Sweden if this stuff is happening. Write letters, talk to all the people you know, mobilise, get public and don't allow the non-atheists to publish unchallenged in the press.

Don't succumb to tiredness and disappointment. I have never read Hedenius, but cleave him to your self and write about what he wrote. It's all got to do with persistence, my darling. Never, ever, ever give up:-). It's a life-long commitment, grab it and always run with it.

You have my best wishes; I would like to transmit my energy to you:-).

Cheers
V

83. The truth in religion

Comment #84914 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 7:26 am

Hahaha!

Quite right Chris. What an extraordinary display of controlling hubris that was!! LOL

Cheers
V

84. The truth in religion

Comment #84910 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 7:20 am

I don't have a problem with good ideas. Maybe it is the wholesale adoption of the then marketed good idea that I am railing against.

I recall that news item where the Dalai Lama was prepared to amend core beliefs based on the findings of science. I am pleased that he appears to be able to adapt core beliefs because science has added to his knowledge of the world about him.

If there were any religious leader to whom I would offer a smile, it would be him. But he is not the problem. Buddhism is the least of our woes, although there is still a simplistic adherence to dogma.

We still have the Abrahamic religions to deal with, and they are far less accommodating to scientific theories, regardless of accumulated evidence and predictive accuracy.

I guess that I have made a blanket denial of anything that smacks of transcendental and superstitious cant. My sister has been a Vipassana Buddhist since 1976. I can't talk to her about normal, common or garden reality because of her spin on it. I am wary of upsetting her. She is far more intelligent than I and yet I see her as being caught in a belief system that flummoxes me. And our relationship consists of dancing around each other trying not to offend and therefore saying nothing of value in what should be a developing understanding of each other. We are in our sixties. Awful, really!! And I can't penetrate it; I don't know how to. She has this idolatry type worship place with a photo of Goenka and other paraphernalia that goes to make up a shrine, in front of which she practices meditative techniques.

I am sorry Steve, maybe my personal circumstance has coloured my views (how unusual:-)).

Love
V

85. The truth in religion

Comment #84904 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 6:31 am

97. Comment #84900 by steve99

That's a decent slap on the wrist:-) and I will wear it.

I have to modify my earlier post.

It's not so much what the prime expositors said of their cogitations and how they were recorded, but more how they were recorded by their adherents. That's where the bullshit comes into play.

I can't recall the actual quote but I'll paraphrase:

Someone has a good idea; then the bureaucracy picks it up and runs with it, manipulating it to fit with the society at large and eventually canonising it in the legal framework. Then the original idea is lost forever within the maze of interpretation.

That's a poor description of what I am trying to recall as an excellent exposition of what happens to ideas whose time has come. Maybe someone knows the quote that I have not remembered.

The take home message is that all these ideas end up corrupted and manipulated for the hoi poloi and their subservience to a governing class. I can't see it any other way.

Maybe you can help me see it differently
V

86. The truth in religion

Comment #84897 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 5:23 am

OK Steve

I maybe culpable of tossing all of these 'teachings' into the same dye vat. I guess that what I am trying to convey is that all transcendental teachings are just trying too hard to make homo sapiens transcendental.

They all try to imbue our existence with something out of the ordinary; something that sets us apart from our co-existent species; something that propounds dominion over those species. We all seem to suffer from this.

And that is my problem. Yes, we have these amazing frontal lobes within our neo-cortex that appears to give us reason, communication, creativity, language and the ability to recall what we have said and thought (with the rider of a shifting and suspect memory).

I was really trying to put these teachers into an historical context. However all of them are guilty of playing transcendental games with the vulnerable masses.

Muhammed was violent in the extremity of his teachings as revealed to him by god (which he vowed were the words of Allah as given to him and written down by his scribes).

Jesus was a tad more conciliatory, not by much; never left a written word, but was quoted and interpreted by fallible men as the inerrant truth inspired by god.

Gautama Buddha was much the same. No written word, just the interpretation of what he said passed through the mindset of his devoted followers. And he gave up a fortune (being of a high caste) which endeared him to the masses. He met them on their own ground and discarded his wealth. How attractive is that to a poverty ridden underclass?

So where am I wrong? All people are vulnerable to bullshit. It doesn't matter whether the teacher is a conscious charlatan or whether he believes his own version of the 'truth'. Maybe that should be a capital T.

I don't buy any of it. It is all hubris. Siddartha was a gorgeous book; it engaged me with delight. However it was just a story. I didn't cleave it to my soul(?).

Sorry Steve, it's all still beautiful bullshit:-). You take out of it what you want to get you through the day; it doesn't make it real. And I know you know that.

Cheers
V

87. The truth in religion

Comment #84894 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 4:22 am

Good on you epeeist

Muhammed (circa: 570 to 632 CE) is known to have drawn on Christian theology and Judeo theology in making up his own theological teachings that he told everyone were the inerrant words of Allah. A pure charlatan and an megalomaniac to boot with his overweening impression of his place in the (any) scheme of things.

The Gautama Buddha (circa: 563BCE to 483BCE) was different but not by much. His teachings were not committed to writing until about 400 years after his death (yes! he did die; how unusual).

Jesus, the Christ (circa 4BCE to 30CE) never left a written fragment of his teachings. Until about 70CE nothing was written about him All oral tradition and suspect.

Don't you find it interesting that none of these revered persons ever left an extant document/fragment written by themselves of their extraordinarily subversive (for their times) teachings? So how did these mythologically re-vamped figures gain so much temporal power?\

It's a mind-fuck, pure and simple.
V

88. The truth in religion

Comment #84872 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 1:44 am

Chris – you are back. I never got an answer from you to my very basic question about religion. Is it possible that you can answer it now? I know you are busy and it has been several weeks since I asked.

You can see from my earlier post that I am still caught at that very basic point. I don't want theologically erudite expositions. I need an answer to my basic question. I will re-state it for you:

I am far less interested in the minutiae of theological argumentation on specifics, as I am in the basic argument for belief in an unseen, un-evidenced and hidden god. That premise is what halts me right at the beginning. I cannot get past it.

It's a basic question and I would like to see it addressed without prevarication and slippy, slidey, sideways obfuscation. Can you oblige, please?

I was hoping for your response on the 'Leprechology thread but you left it – as did everyone else:-).

Are you able to address this very basic question that pertains to belief?

Cheers
V

89. The truth in religion

Comment #84868 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 1:28 am

The point is that Jesus said nothing that he personally left behind in any document. Any purported words he (if he existed as an individual and that's also debatable) uttered, that have been attributed to him and after an oral history of over 70 years, come through the mouths of ordinary people beguiled by promise and hope in their untenable situation of being ruled by a successful occupying force.

I understand the need for promise and hope and also understand the need to strive to develop what the Buddhists call a 'sanga' – a group of like-minded people so that the closetedness and reiteration of the 'beliefs' form the consolation of a beleaguered group of people in the catacombs and so becomes a cultural meme. Of course, I consider that particular meme to have replicated very successfully because an underlying tenet tapped into a fairly basic fear of the unknown and supplied an understandable, though spurious, answer to ameliorate that inchoate fear.

Then, of course, this meme was inculcated into the children of the 'faithful' and so gained such a toe-hold on the imaginative and vulnerable mind that the religious meme has proliferated through all superstitious peoples' cultures and remains today.

You may gather from this that I view religiosity as a very basic form of indoctrination. It was usurped, by the controllers, from its original consoling idea while believers were held under the thrall of temporal rulers. Fantasy is a marvellous way to ward off horror and despair of one's horrific circumstance. It also supplies the necessary in-group mentality to enable it to survive.

It is now the 21st century. It confounds me, as with most posters on this site, that such stories, embellished and with so many egregious inconsistencies manufactured by the desperate proselytisers of the 'faith' in appalling living situations, can be taken as inerrantly true now. It is a man-made collection of stories designed to gather together people who needed an extended 'family' of like-mindedness.

Even those who talk about metaphor rather than literal inerrancy come unstuck in their arguments. When trawling through what the non-atheists say about the bible and its teachings, we find splinter groups numbering in the hundreds or even thousands of Christian sects with miniscule differences in interpretation of this supposedly inerrant holy book. These sects are implacably opposed to other sects utilising the same collection of stories.

I have to say it is quite mind-boggling to me. I look back over the creation myths of different peoples'. I am enamoured of the Greek Pantheon (they were so human and fallible, full of hubris and human partisanship, and naughty to boot!).

I can only quote Stephen F Roberts again:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I commend some videos:

Brian Flemming The God Who Wasn't There
???? Zeitgeist.com
BBC (Tony Robinson)The Doomsday Code

Now anyone can charge me with being 'caught up' in the current worry about religious extremism. They would be right to do so. However no platitudes can allay my fears.

Try, I beg you. Please – no un-evidenced extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Please, no comforting platitudes, I can do without them. Please do not expect me to believe on 'faith' that this planet and its inhabitants (that includes all species both plant and animal, as well as homo sapiens), are sequestered from disaster because someone invented a religious regime and has been seduced by it.

I need a drink
V

Edit I had to erase another post I had composed in Word. Sorry to those that wouldn't have been able to follow my post. Fixed now:-)
V

90. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #84847 by Veronique on November 4, 2007 at 12:28 am

I am starting to describe the world as divided between atheists and non-atheists.

I think it puts me on the leading foot and non-atheists on the back foot.

And I am taking back the word atheist as a positive. It is the default position until someone posits proof that the non-atheist position is, in actual fact, the correct one.

Then it will be a matter of proving that one god reigns supreme.

Until then they are all non-atheists and I welcome every recovering non-atheist to the world of rationality and reason with support, friendship and the exchange of knowledge within the real world.

Carry on
V

91. Rome playing politics

Comment #84838 by Veronique on November 3, 2007 at 10:10 pm

I have just spent the last several hours going through the posts to an article about ex-Muslims. I went through all the links that various commentators included in their posts as well. There's quite a debate:-).

Daz and crazy, pop over there and take a look. I am keeping out of it, only lurking, but you may be interested in joining in the discussion.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1797,Why-do-we-ignore-the-plight-of-ex-Muslims,Johann-Hari-Independent

As I said it has consumed some time for me to read it, but it is interesting enough to warrant it (for me).

Cheers
V

92. Rome playing politics

Comment #84760 by Veronique on November 3, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I realise that we get hand picked articles here and this one is fine. Grayling's latest swipe is much stronger than his previous articles. So are a lot of others.

Is it just me or do you get the feeling that religious apologists are starting to be somewhat overwhelmed in the print medium by the other side? I don't want to get my hopes up only to have them dashed against the rock of ages, but I think I am reading so much more that ridicules and downright slams religious posturing in the papers.

It's just over a year since TGD was published; well let's say 18 months since Harris published TEoF. Apart from the storm that erupted at that time, then the publishing of Grayling, Dennett, Stenger, Onfray , Hitchens and others and the continuation of the storm, do you reckon that we are seeing more articles disclosing the doings of the various religious cults that impinge on our societies?

I guess I hope that you will say, 'yeah V, I see a smidgen of change in the fight-back against religion. The articles are more strongly-worded, the arcane doings of the churches are being exposed more and more readily, the ridicule is developing into a fine art.'

Must be my cautious optimism:-). Hi Logicel, you're back. Does this mean the trading season is finished for the year, sort of?

Good morning all
V

93. AAI 07

Comment #84652 by Veronique on November 3, 2007 at 6:07 am

I wonder how Scooter would react to the knowledge that the dumping of wheat that went on from the 60s to the early to mid 90s was because the US farmers were paid on a farm subsidy scheme to grow wheat. That appears to be the reason for the over-growing and over supply of wheat during those decades, when the surpluses ensued. Sometime in the 90s someone (I will find the source) started to understand that the better alternative was to pay farmers to not grow wheat.

Brilliant thinking. Wheat farmers paid to be non-wheat farmers. Paid for doing nothing. I am sure that some would have planted other crops. But a lot took the handouts and survived. Are they the leeches on the social and economic relief programmes? How say you, Scooter? Remember, this is the loaf of bread that you wanted but don't bake. This was over-supply of a commodity that was dumped into the Pacific because over-supply had been subsidised.

So Scooter, how do you wash that away? How do you fit that within your ideology?

Farmers are fiercely independent. And, it appears, dependent on the protectionism that the US declared it would forgo (to the world) and has prevaricated on forever. Free market economy? Sure!! Just so long as the US doesn't have to comply!

Put your response to another poster because I will not deal directly with you.

You know that
V

94. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84639 by Veronique on November 3, 2007 at 2:54 am

54. Comment #84634 by epeeist

I accept your rapier like assessment of (and amendments to) the slackness of my previous post.

I couldn't agree more. Thank you for clarifying exactly the feeling I wanted to convey and was sloppy instead of being thoughtful.

Cheers:-)
V

95. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84626 by Veronique on November 3, 2007 at 12:16 am

Diacanu

Bizzaro Dawkins hasn't been around for a while. He is a religite troll who wastes everyone's time. Try not to feed him (as you tried to help us with Scooter:-)).

He goes to Liberty Uni or one of the faith universities and is doing biology. I have no idea how he compartmentalises and have no desire to know. He is cognitively dissonant and drives us all batty.

Don't bruise your forehead:-) He's not worth it.
Cheers
V

96. Creating controversy

Comment #84034 by Veronique on November 1, 2007 at 3:30 am

3. Comment #84024 by clinteas

Write to The Australian. Click on the link at the bottom of the comment box to get there. Then post a comment.

Here's mine, just submitted:

Thank you Barry Williams. I have just read Carlin Romano's article counselling the rest of us to use politeness when addressing the bronze-age religious myth holy books of the three Abrahamic religions. I can no longer post a comment on that comment thread. Sob.

Well, this is the 21st century and we have learned a lot over the past few hundred years. I have never understood the desire by religionists to cleave to a worldview that emanated from the Middle East with the most extraordinary claims for magic and biologically impossible events.

But, hey that's me. I prefer to learn what is being discovered through stringent, scientifically evidenced based observation, tested, re-tested and peer reviewed knowledge.

I love the religious and spiritual myths. The Greek Pantheon has been a long time favourite of mine. Great stories and the Olympian gods were just so human, weren't they? Conceived in our own image; no wonder they were understandable. Or the Norse Pantheon - always loved Thor, so noisy and didn't Douglas Adams revere him?
Sam Harris has said that overall we reject all of the thousands of gods who now lie buried in that mass grave called mythology. Time marches on and gods die.

Our own Stephen F Roberts said:

'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.'

It is one of the most powerful and insightful statements I have ever read.

This strident cousin of creationism now monikered as intelligent design and utilising the most spurious arguments in an attempt to bash the bible into 21st century science is spearheaded by Ken Ham, an ex-Queenslander, who couldn't find enough dupes here in larrikin and irreverent Australia. How awful that we spawned such a charlatan.

I say, good on you Barry; nice to read your article. Doesn't give me hope but does ameliorate my despair.

Veronique

97. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84013 by Veronique on November 1, 2007 at 2:29 am

I can't get The Australian to accept a comment. 404 error.

This is what I wanted to post but seem unable to do so:

Courtesy counts:

"…But then certain enthusiasts took things too far by crashing airliners into office towers in the name of Allah, launching a global crusade to rid the world of evil, and declaring the jury still out on Darwinian evolution. As a consequence, religion now looks nearly as bad as royalism did in the late 18th century." writes Lazare.

Actually it looks worse. Carlin Romano now counsels respect from atheists for the holy texts under the aegis of which, the most appalling and dangerous acts of war have been and are beginning again to be fought.

The 'New Atheists' have been called militant. Articulate, outspoken, rationally-based and very aware of present danger might be a better description.

"In the same way, atheists should not, unprovoked, go on and on about how sacred texts lack God's imprimatur."

Romano needs to realise that rational people have been provoked and feel very strongly about being caught up in a set of potentially explosive circumstances that are being orchestrated by religious lunatics; people who have surrendered reason for a religious dominance agenda.

With the advent of anti-religious polemics, well written, well observed and strongly argued, more atheists feel less alone and are gathering their forces in an attempt to halt the madness that is turning into a crusade. Bush even used that word until his minders gagged him. The American Taliban, pushing Bush, yearns for a theocratic America and he helps by dismantling the 1st Amendment. These people are orchestrating events to bring about the criteria for a 'Second Coming'. They literally believe the demented ravings of John on Patmos writing Revelations.

Ahmadenijad is a theocrat. He is a Muslim. There is less wiggle room in the Koran than there is in the Bible. There is no metaphor in the Koran; it is all literal.

We know the arguments surrounding the wars in the Middle East, the western desire for 'fuel delivery stability' and the provoked 'war on terror' and the changing of the global guard. That is worthy of a lengthy article in itself, but needs be left at the minute.

What is concomitant with that is a war of domination for a belief in a sky god. Which sky god, you may ask. Romano, you really expect atheists to approach these very dangerous holy books, their strange addiction to death and destruction, being acted on by their cognitively dissonant adherents, with respect? It was HL Mencken who wrote "Religion deserves no more respect than a pile of garbage."

I think the time for politeness has gone. No one asked me whether I want my world blown up, smashed and destroyed. These religions have had well over a thousand years of polite bemusement from the rest of us. Up until recently they were mild and private. There have been flare-ups like the Crusades, the Inquisition and genocide over that time. They were all dangerous times. Then there was 9/11, but it had been brewing for some time before that. This time it is very dangerous.

The three Abrahamic religions are intolerant of each other. It didn't matter much for a long time, but now we have zealots with weapons and agendas.

Why should the rest of us tolerate any of them when it is likely to draw us into their maelstrom? Even the emasculated C of E has its Revelation-loving loonies. The Catholics have their war-mongering fringe dwellers. The Zionists are way out there. And as I said, there's no wiggle room with Islamists.

No Romano. Ridicule of these holy books is one method. Written polemics is another. You forgot to mention Onfray and Grayling, Stenger and others. Irony is good, I'll buy that, but not gentle any more. Savage humour is another. All these stem from our utter disbelief in bronze-age myths and an understanding of the dangers that are currently being fomented by the religious divide.

There are more atheists finding a voice. They say you can't herd cats, but the atheists are beginning to group under the banner of reason and rationalism to counter the escalating madness that is religion.

It is no longer an academic and theological exercise. Sure the debates rage on in Oxford with McGrath, in New York with D'Souza and other learned academics in academies with no one changing her mind, but the on-the-ground numbers are swelling.

There is no way of penetrating the religious mindset but there is a need to make the religious moderates understand that their lack of criticism is what gives the extremists the launching pad for their mad assaults.

Veronique

It's the 1st Nov. here and the article was published on the 30th Oct. Maybe the comment thread is no longer accessible.

Ah well
V

98. AAI 07

Comment #83675 by Veronique on October 30, 2007 at 9:31 pm

294. Comment #83575 by Bonzai

I think you may be right in that there has been more than one instance of dumping. It's an appalling waste of good food. If food has been being dumped up to the 90s then I can't imagine the number of times it has happened in those 30 odd years since my first awareness of it.

I am too young to remember the Great Depression of '29 but my parents lived through it in their early twenties. I heard a lot of stories from my father whose father had been strapped for money (there was none) and food (there was very little). I know there were thousands of men who walked the country roads to try and get work for a cup of tea and a sandwich. John Steinbeck wrote about the effect in the US.

At that time the global population was more like a billion or less. I can't find the estimate for then but I know we reached 3 billion in 1960.

This is from UNICEF written in 1999.

§ The 6 billionth baby has less than 1 chance in 10 of being born into relative prosperity, as a member of the majority in an industrialized country or of the wealthy minority in a developing one. On the other hand, the child has 3 chances in 10 of being born into extreme poverty — and 4 in 10 of being only marginally better off.

§ The 6 billionth child will also find himself in a world where the gap between rich and poor has never been so wide. The richest one fifth of humanity has 82 times the income of the poorest fifth — and consumes 86 per cent of the world's resources.

§ The 6 billionth child will be particularly disadvantaged if she is born into a minority ethnic group — a category that includes two thirds of the poorest children in the United States, for example. In Peru, indigenous people one-and-a-half times more likely to be poor and almost three times more likely to be extremely poor non-indigenous people.

§ If the baby is a girl, she will also be worse off than a boy born almost anywhere. She may receive less than her brother when food is scarce, and she will be less likely to start school. If she is put in school, she will have a greater chance than her brother of being taken out, either to save her family the cost of schooling or because she is needed to work at home.

§ The 6 billionth baby's future will also be much brighter if her mother has received some education. The child will be less likely to die in infancy, will grow up healthier and better fed and will be more likely to start and to stay in school. Indeed, increased schooling for girls sends benefits cascading through societies and economies. As more girls are educated, and for longer periods, their confidence and empowerment will rise, and infant mortality and population growth will fall — all of this a boon to life expectancy and overall economic growth.

I won't get caught by Scooter, DG, the Flea or Fides again. At least now I have others I can add to my list. However, maybe Scooter will read this excerpt and rethink his ideological position. Who knows?

Cheers
V

99. AAI 07

Comment #83655 by Veronique on October 30, 2007 at 7:51 pm

304. Comment #83598 by alovrin

Thanks for that link. The article points out exactly what I think. I didn't know that site before, but have signed up for the live feeds. It looks terrific:-).

Lots of lovely reading ahead:-) so thanks again

Cheers
V

100. AAI 07

Comment #83571 by Veronique on October 30, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Thank you Scooter for answering. This is a modification to my last comment. I now am utterly unable to understand where you come from.

Given what you have disclosed, I find it incomprehensible that you can hold the attitude that you appear to.

However, I apologise to you and everyone else for my horrid post. I will not indulge in such horrible attacks again. Sorry Scooter. It was unforgivable of me:-(. I should have gone to bed, like Corylus did pages back.

I have taken a breath, Limey:-). In fact I slept and it's morning here now. A bright, sunshiny day.

240. Comment #83471 by Quetzalcoatl

It was some time in the 60s, Quetz. It's pretty hazy now, but it happened while I was at Uni so it had to be the 60s. The 'logic' was that if the excess wheat were given away, the global trading price for wheat would drop because demand would drop. So it was preferable to dump it.

It must have been a bumper year for wheat production and the storage facilities couldn't handle the excess. I guess that the US didn't want to flood the international market for economic reasons. I presume the wheat boards bought the wheat so the farmers were still paid. It seemed a criminal waste to me when Africa could have used the wheat. I understood the economic reasons but couldn't countenance the waste when countries were in want.

I don't even know how to find any reference to this now. If I do I will let you know. I suppose there must be wheat board histories somewhere. I'll try.

239. Comment #83469 by notsobad

I have worked for myself for most of my life. I wouldn't make a good employee, I guess you would understand why:-). So I don't make a salary as such, a lot of people contribute to my earnings. Or used to, I am pretty much retired now and have provided for my own retirement. It's enough, that's all, but much better than a $1 a day, I grant you. I consider myself privileged and see many others as underprivileged. So I donate time and energy to our neighbourhood centre. It's a sort of 'giving back' to a society that provided the framework in which I could prosper. Many others don't prosper for whatever reasons. I don't consider myself a bleeding heart but I do feel sorry for people who are ill-equipped to live in this world and many are.

In Australia, there are companies, the shareholders of which are mounting campaigns to limit the remuneration of CEOs to a 'reasonable' level whatever that might mean. This is an escalating issue. If CEOs are head hunted with the lure of more money, they tend to follow. Sure, that they are head hunted indicates that they make good CEOs. But where does this stop? The shareholders think a better ROI is preferable to massive CEO salaries; the CEOs follow more money. The only way to attract CEOs is to offer more money than the company they are currently working with. It's becoming a bit of a stand-off.

The increasing disparity between rich and poor produces resentment and envy. I don't know the answer to this but anyone can see the results. Someone once said that if all the money in the world were re-distributed evenly amongst the people living in the world, in ten years that distribution would be back where it is now:-). I suspect that he is correct.

You see it with lottery winners. Some make good use of their windfall, others squander it and are left much the same as prior to winning.

It's all very odd. The world is very odd. And so are we. All of us.

Time for a cuppa
V